Agenda of Council Briefing

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5 Strategy & Development

5.1 No. 382 (Lot: 1; STR: 23150) Bulwer Street, West Perth - Proposed Grouped Dwelling

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Development Plans ⇩

3. Applicant's Supporting Documents ⇩

4. Advertised Plans (Superseded) ⇩

5. Summary of Submissions - Administration Response ⇩

6. Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response ⇩

7. Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No.2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Grouped Dwelling at No. 382 (Lot: 1; STR: 23150) Bulwer Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 7:

1. Development Plans

This approval is for a Grouped Dwelling as shown on the approved plans dated 10 September 2020. No other development forms part of this approval;

2. Boundary Walls

The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the practical completion of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City. The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick; or material as otherwise approved; to the satisfaction of the City;

3. Stormwater

Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any other property or road reserve;

4. External Fixtures

All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennaes, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive;

5. Landscaping

5.1 A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge, to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to lodgement of a Building Permit. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

· The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

· Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

· The provision of a minimum of 12 percent deep soil area, 3 percent planting areas and 22.5 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

5.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 5.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

6. Visual Privacy

Prior to occupancy or use of the development, all privacy screening shown on the approved plans shall be installed and shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed to comply provisions, to the satisfaction of the City;

7. Colours and Materials

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the details and annotations as indicated on the approved plans which forms part of this approval or as otherwise agreed, to the satisfaction of the City;

8. Fencing

8.1 The breezeblocks shall provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total surface area as unobstructed when viewed directly from the street, to the satisfaction of the City; and

8.2 The pedestrian access gate is required to open wholly within the subject lot, to the satisfaction of the City;

9. Sight Lines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within 1.0 metre of where the driveway meets the right of way, unless the further approval of the City is obtained;

10. Car Parking and Access

10.1 The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1;

10.2 All driveways, car parking and manoeuvring area(s) which form part of this approval shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained thereafter by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City; and

10.3 No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; and

11. Dilapidation and Engineering Reports

11.1 A Dilapidation Report for No. 384 Bulwer Street, West Perth shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the demolition; and

11.2 An Engineering Report for No. 384 Bulwer Street, West Perth shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the demolition to ascertain the potential undermining of foundations and walls and the extent of permanent grout injection required.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 382 Bulwer Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the construction of a new two storey Grouped Dwelling fronting Bulwer Street.

The Grouped Dwelling consists of two portions, with the main dwelling located at the middle of the site and containing the living areas and three bedrooms. The second portion at the rear contains the garage with an office above and is separated from the main dwelling by an open courtyard. Vehicle access is provided from the rear right-of-way (ROW) and the primary pedestrian access to the dwelling is provided from Bulwer Street.

A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The proposed development plans have been included as Attachment 2. The applicants supporting documents including an Urban Design Study and an Environmentally Sustainable Design report are included in Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:	Jonathan McIntosh and Peter Casserly
Applicant:	Residential Building WA Pty Ltd
Date of Application:	17 March 2020
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R80
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Grouped Dwelling
Proposed Use Class:	Grouped Dwelling
Lot Area:	204m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Yes – 3.0m wide, drained and sealed.
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is bound by Bulwer Street to the south-west, single storey dwellings to the north-west and south-east and a ROW to the north-east. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

The subject site and all surrounding properties are zoned Residential R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site along with the neighbouring dwelling at No. 384 Bulwer Street are part of a built strata located on the same parent lot.

The subject site and all surrounding properties are within the Residential Built Form Area and have a permitted building height of three storeys as prescribed under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2, the City’s Built Form Policy and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Street Setback		ü
Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls		ü
Open Space	ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Setback of Garages and Carports	ü
Garage Width		ü
Street Surveillance	ü
Street Walls and Fences		ü
Outdoor Living Areas	ü
Landscaping (R Codes Volume 1)	ü
Parking & Access	ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls	ü
Visual Privacy	ü
Solar Access	ü
Essential Facilities	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Environmentally Sustainable Design		ü
Urban Design Study		ü
Development on Rights of Way		ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council is as follows:

Street Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.2 Street setback required: 6.0m Balconies on upper floors setback 1.0m behind the ground floor predominant building line	First floor street setback proposed: 5.3m First floor balcony proposed to sit 0.9m forward of the ground floor predominant building line
Lot Boundary Setbacks / Boundary Walls
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks North-West boundary: First floor (balcony to bed 3): 2.2m South-East boundary: First floor (balcony to bed 3): 2.3m Ground floor (ensuite to bed 2): 1.5m	First floor (balcony to bed 3): 1.2m First floor (balcony to bed 3): 1.0m Ground floor (ensuite to bed 2): 1.2m
Boundary Walls Average wall height permitted: 3.0m	Ground floor walk-in robe wall (south-east) average height proposed: 3.2m
Garage Width
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.5 For lots less than 10m wide Garage width permitted 4.0m	Garage width proposed: 5.4m
Street Walls and Fences
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.7 Maximum height of solid wall permitted: 1.8m	Maximum height of solid wall proposed: 2.0m
Development on Rights of Way
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.13 ROW setback required following ROW widening: 1.0m	Setbacks proposed following ROW widening: Garage: 0.3m First Floor Office: Nil

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days from 26 June 2020 to 9 July 2020. The method of consultation included notice on the City’s website and 23 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

At the conclusion of the consultation period a total of seven submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal. The submissions raised the following concerns:

· Design and street setbacks are not consistent with the established streetscape and surrounding locality;

· Adverse impacts of bulk and overshadowing to neighbouring outdoor areas;

· Not taking advantage of the three storey height limit at the detriment of adjoining properties, natural light access and landscaping;

· High number of walls built up to boundaries;

· Lack of canopy coverage would be detrimental to neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Existing mature trees on-site should be retained;

· Overlooking to adjoining properties; and

· Inadequate space for safe vehicle manoeuvring.

A copy of the plans that were advertised to adjoining properties are included in Attachment 4.

The applicant submitted amended plans to address the deemed-to-comply variations proposed; comments from the Design Review Panel (DRP) Chair; and the concerns raised during the community consultation period. These changes related to increased landscaping; the addition of a front fence; the relocation of the first floor office; and design changes to the first floor elevations.

The amended plans were re-advertised to previous submitters for a period of seven days from 1 September 2020 to 7 September 2020. Two submissions were received, one in support and one in objection to the amended plans. Both submitters previously objected to the proposal. The submissions raised the following concerns:

· Overlooking from the relocated office and through the balcony louvres;

· Inadequate space for safe vehicle manoeuvring;

· Adverse impacts of bulk and overshadowing to neighbouring properties; and

· Lack of canopy coverage would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area.

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 5. The applicant also provided a written response to the submissions received, as provided in Attachment 6.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)

In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) delegations under the MRS, the application was referred to DPLH as the subject site abuts Bulwer Street, which is an Other Regional Road. DPLH provided a letter of no objection to the proposed development on regional transport grounds, subject to all vehicle access to the site being obtained from the ROW.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The proposal was referred to the Chair of the City’s Design Review Panel for comments. The plans initially referred are included in Attachment 2. The following key comments were provided:

· The first floor overhang to Bulwer Street is acceptable in this context. Suggested to reduce the overhang to allow additional light to the ground floor;

· The overall street setback reflects the adjoining dwellings and is supported;

· The first floor width is the minimum to achieve a functional space and the lot boundary setback variations are expected with a 6 metre wide block;

· Increased uncovered usable space would improve natural light access to the rear of the dwelling. Look at opportunities to improve natural light access to the balcony and rear courtyard;

· The lack of canopy coverage indicates a lack of outdoor space and over-developed proposal;

· The skillion roof effectively minimises building bulk on the adjoining properties. Suggest reducing the size of the solid panel above the balcony opening to decrease impacts of bulk on the street;

· The contemporary cladding and white first floor colour palette ties in with the verandah detailing on many character houses. Suggest removing the recess and change in colour of the first floor elevations to enable a more refined and contextual design;

· The architectural language doesn’t link to the surrounding context in terms of fine grain detailing, materiality, textures and colours. The front ground floor elevation and front fence are opportunities to improve this while maintaining a contemporary style. Suggest including a front fence and integrating breezeblocks and red face brick into the design;

· Suggest reducing the number of rooms or length of the first floor to improve resident amenity and decrease bulk impacts on adjoining properties; and

· Suggest updating the plans and perspectives to show the adjoining dwellings and context.

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the DRP comments and community consultation comments, incorporating the following key changes:

· Relocation of the office to provide increased uncovered usable space and improve natural light access to the rear rooms of the dwelling;

· Revision of the balcony design to introduce openings on both sides of the balcony. The size of the solid panel above the balcony was also decreased;

· Increased landscaping and canopy coverage in the front setback area and the rear courtyard;

· Provision of a red face brick front fence that includes breezeblock design features to respond to the streetscape. The front fence recycles the bricks from the existing house and fence; and

· Revision of the first floor elevations to remove the change in colour and recess.

The final set of plans that the applicant is seeking approval for are included as Attachment 2.

The DRP Chair reviewed the amended plans and advised that the changes significantly improve the level of internal amenity for residents and have improved the developments relationship with the surrounding context and streetscape in terms of colours and materials.

The DRP Chair advised that the impact of bulk and scale on adjoining properties has improved through the relocation of the office and skillion roof design. Concerns were maintained in relation to the dwellings size in relation to the site. The acceptability of bulk and scale is discussed in the Comments section below.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the delegation does not extend to applications for development approval that received more than five objections during the City’s community consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

The Built Form Policy requires a minimum setback of 6.0 metres from Bulwer Street. It also requires upper floor balconies to be setback a minimum of 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line.

The development proposes the first floor to be setback 5.3 metres from Bulwer Street and the first floor balcony to sit 0.9 metres forward of the ground floor predominant building line.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the design, upper floor overhang and street setback are not consistent with the existing streetscape.

The proposed setbacks meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The street setback of the adjoining properties is highly varied, with the setbacks of the five properties on either side ranging from 3.3 metres to 9.1 metres. The majority of the streetscape is currently single storey but this is expected to change as this section of Bulwer Street is zoned R80 and has a three storey building height permissibility;

· The setback of the first floor to Bulwer Street is largely in line with the setbacks of the immediate neighbours. The first floor setback is sufficient in this context and would set an appropriate standard for future development which would not compromise the existing or future streetscape;

· The development incorporates predominant features of the streetscape through its colours and materials. The face brick finish of the ground floor references many existing dwellings on Bulwer Street and the white colour palette of the first floor reflects the verandah and gable roof detailing of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed front fence incorporates face brick and breezeblocks that are also features of the streetscape;

· The development clearly distinguishes the ground and first floors, and is well articulated and minimises visual bulk through the following:

o A compliant ground floor setback is provided and the setback across both floors is varied, providing depth and reducing the mass and scale of the development;

o The windows provided on the ground and first floors and the provision of an open balcony reduce impacts of solid blank walls and subsequent bulk as viewed across and along the street;

o Contrasting materials and colours between the ground and floors break up the impact of bulk;

· The proposal incorporates deep soil zones, planting areas and canopy coverage within the front setback area, including five mature trees. The provision of landscaping assists in ameliorating the bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the street. The landscaping would soften the appearance of the dwelling and contribute to the landscape amenity of the street; and

· The DRP Chair supports the first floor overhang and overall street setback of the development in relation to the neighbouring dwellings. The DRP also support the colours and materials of the street elevation and front fence in terms of how the development integrates into the surrounding context.

Lot Boundary Setbacks

North-West

The R Codes Volume 1 require a minimum setback of 2.2 metres of the first floor (balcony to bed 3) from the north-west boundary. The development proposes a setback of 1.2 metres.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns in relation to excessive bulk and overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties as a result of the lot boundary setback variations.

The proposed setbacks meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The affected property to the north-west is a single storey dwelling that is built up to the shared boundary for its full length. The first floor does not directly abut major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of the north-west adjoining dwelling;

· The north-western elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple openings of different styles to break up the impact of solid blank walls when viewed from the adjoining property and the street;

· Due to the favourable orientation of the lots, the development would not adversely impact the adjoining north-western properties access to direct sunlight. The stepping back of the first floor and the open courtyard at the rear ensures adequate ventilation is provided to the adjoining north-western property;

· The openings from the north-western elevation meet the R Codes Volume 1 Visual Privacy deemed-to-comply standards. The reduced lot boundary setbacks would not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property; and

· The DRP Chair supports the colours and materials of the first floor elevation. They acknowledged that the variation is expected with a 6 metre wide block and the first floor at its minimum functional width.

South-East

The R Codes Volume 1 requires a minimum setback of 2.3 metres of the first floor (balcony to bed 3) and 1.5 metres of the ground floor (ensuite to bed 2) from the south-east boundary. The development proposes a setback of 1.0 metre and 1.2 metres respectively.

The R Codes Volume 1 requires boundary walls to have a maximum average wall height of 3.0 metres. The development proposes the ground floor walk-in robe south-east boundary wall to have an average height of 3.2 metres.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the reduced lot boundary setbacks would result in excessive bulk and overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.

The proposed setbacks meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The south-east adjoining property contains a single storey dwelling. The first floor and ground floor would partially abut the south-east adjoining properties outdoor living area and would directly abut a major opening to a habitable room at the centre of the neighbouring dwelling;

· The south-east elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple openings to break up the impact of building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property and the street. The elevation incorporates contrasting colours and materials including face brick, dark render and white cladding that assists in breaking up the ground and first floor walls when viewed from the adjoining property;

· The areas affected by the reduced setback of the ground floor and the over height boundary wall would already be shadowed by the first floor. The subject site has a three storey height limit and the development is only two storeys, with the first floor skillion roof designed to fall away to the rear to reduce shadowing impacts on the major opening and outdoor living area of the adjoining dwelling. The overshadowing generated by the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply requirements;

· The stepping back of the ground and first floors and the open courtyard at the rear ensures adequate ventilation is provided to the adjoining south-eastern property;

· The openings from the south-east elevation meet the R Codes Volume 1 Visual Privacy deemed-to-comply standards. The reduced lot boundary setbacks would not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property;

· The boundary wall is located behind the street setback line and would be partially concealed by the adjoining dwelling. This would not be prominently located as viewed from the street. The boundary wall is also finished with face brick consistent with the adjoining dwelling and streetscape; and

· The DRP Chair supported the colours and materials of the elevation. They acknowledged that the variations are expected with a 6 metre wide block and a first floor at its minimum functional width.

Garage Width

The Built Form Policy requires garages to have a maximum width of 4 metres where lots are less than 10 metres wide. The development proposes a garage with a width of 5.4 metres to the ROW.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the garage width in relation to it being built up to both side lot boundaries.

The proposed garage width meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The location of the garage from the ROW is preferable to reduce impacts of building bulk to Bulwer Street;

· The existing ROW contains a number of single and double garages, vehicle access points and outbuildings that face the ROW. It is expected that as the adjoining properties are redeveloped that further garages and vehicle access points would be proposed from the ROW;

· The ROW has limited visual character and the proposed garage is consistent with the current and expected future use of the ROW. The visual impact to the ROW is positive as a result of the contrasting materials and the provision of a major opening from the Office, facing the ROW;

· Visual connectivity between the ROW and the dwelling is maintained by the major opening to the first floor office that would provide surveillance to the ROW; and

· The additional width is required to provide compliant vehicle parking and manoeuvring space for one vehicle with the additional area providing space for a workbench, bicycle storage and access to the courtyard.

Street Walls and Fences

The Built Form Policy requires solid walls to have a maximum height of 1.8 metres where two significant design features are provided. The development proposes a solid wall with a maximum height of 2.0 metres.

The proposed fence to Bulwer Street meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The fence is solid to a height of 1.8 metres on the north-west side of the lot and to height of 2.0 metres on the south-east side of the lot. This results from the slope of the site along the street. The additional height allows the top of the fence to remain level and the bin store to be screened from the street;

· A section of the fence is proposed as visually permeable breezeblocks to provide views between dwelling and the street. This section of the fence ensures street surveillance is maintained;

· The fence is compatible with the proposed development and existing streetscape in terms of style and materials. The high solid wall and face brick finish is consistent with a number of fences in the existing streetscape. The fence uses both new face brick and recycled brick from the existing dwelling to tie into contemporary style of the development and reference the existing face brick in dwellings and fences along the street. The breezeblocks are a feature of other fences in the existing streetscape and tie into the contemporary style of the development;

· Bulwer Street is a ‘District Distributor B’ road and the solid portion of wall would provide privacy and noise screening to the front yard and ground floor; and

· The DRP Chair supports the front fence materials and style, advising that the fence appropriately references and integrates with the surrounding context.

Development on Rights of Way

ROW widening

The redevelopment of this property is subject to ROW widening in accordance with the Built Form Policy and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Planning Bulletin 33: Rights of Way or Laneways in Established Areas - Guidelines (PB33). The current ROW that borders the site to the north-east is 3.0 metres in width. The recommended 6.0 metre ROW width standard included in PB33 would require future widening of 1.5 metres to be provided for this site to ensure appropriate space is available to manoeuvre a vehicle in and out of a garage, carport or parking space at right angles to the ROW.

Car parking on the subject lot is proposed to be accessed from the ROW and the 1.5 metre widening on the north-eastern side of the lot is necessary to provide adequate manoeuvring for vehicles to and from this car parking area. The garage and first floor office have been set back outside of the future ROW widening area, with no permanent structures or active open space proposed within this area. The ROW widening area cannot be ceded to the City until subdivision stage but this area is required to be set aside for future widening at the earliest opportunity being the development application stage.

ROW setback

The Built Form Policy requires a 1.0 metre setback from the ROW after 1.5 metres of road widening has been applied. The development proposes a 0.3 metre setback from the garage and a nil setback of the first floor office from the current ROW boundary.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with vehicle manoeuvring and safety from the garage.

The proposed setback meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The 1.8 metre set back of the garage from the ROW ensures that compliant sightlines are provided and compliant vehicle manoeuvring space is provided in accordance with the Australian Standards (AS2890.1);

· The major opening from the first floor office breaks up the bulk of the wall and provides passive surveillance to the ROW. The change in materials of the garage and first floor office along with the overhang and reduced width (3.0 metres) of the first floor to the ROW further reduces and breaks up the impact of bulk on the ROW;

· The development is setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the current ROW, allowing for future ROW widening if required; and

· The development provides pedestrian access to the public street (Bulwer Street) for postal, rubbish collection and public utilities. Suitable space is available for service areas and waste management. The proposed ROW setbacks do not detrimentally impact pedestrian or vehicle access to the site.

Landscaping

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes Volume 1, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out additional deemed‑to‑comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the WAPC and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.

The Built Form Policy requires a minimum of 30 percent of the site to be provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 22.5 percent of the site as canopy coverage at maturity. Compliant planting areas and deep soil zones are provided.

Administration received comments during community consultation that raised concerns with the lack of landscaping and canopy coverage proposed.

The proposed landscaping meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The provided deep soil zones and planting areas accommodate a number of mature trees. The landscaping includes portions of canopy cover which extend outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the reduction of the impact of the urban heat island effect and increasing urban air quality of the locality. It would also provide additional shade to the Bulwer Street pedestrian path and verge;

· The location of five mature trees in the front setback area would soften the appearance of the dwelling from the street and adjoining properties. The landscaping provided positively contributes to the overall landscape amenity of the development site as well as the development when viewed from the street and adjoining properties;

· The consolidated area of canopy coverage in the rear courtyard is consistent with that of adjoining properties. This ensures that a sense of open space between buildings is maintained;

· The proposal has incorporated a variety of species that create interest and soften the building edge when viewed from the street and adjoining residential properties. The landscaping locations also provide an increased amenity for residents and future occupants;

· The proposal provides compliant deep soil zones and planting areas, allowing for future mature planting opportunities. The applicant has stated in Attachment 6 that the owner intends on engaging a landscape architect to progress the concept of a micro-orchard in the front setback area and herb wall gardens to the courtyard. This would provide additional canopy coverage and landscaping and further reduce the impact of the development on the street and adjoining properties; and

· While existing mature trees on-site are proposed to be removed, the development proposes to increase the canopy coverage on-site from the existing 11.9 percent to 22.5 percent through the provision of ten new trees. This ensures that overall amount of landscaping is increasing and an effective contribution would be made to the City’s green canopy.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Clause 5.11 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives for environmentally sustainable design. The applicant has provided justification and a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to demonstrate how the development has incorporated features of environmentally sustainable design and satisfied these local housing objectives. These are provided as Attachment 3 and include the following:

· Maximising the number of openings on the north-west elevation of the first floor;

· Provision of space for a future rainwater tank;

· Water efficient taps, toilets and heat pump hot water systems to be installed;

· Adaptive reuse of the bricks and Metters stove from the existing dwelling;

· Solar panels with a battery storage system to be installed;

· Inclusion of a central courtyard to maximise access to northern light;

· Roof solar absorptance rate of 0.43; and

· A 50 percent reduction in global warming potential and net fresh water use against the Perth statistical average for residences.

Administration has reviewed the attached justification and LCA and is satisfied that the development has incorporated sufficient environmentally sustainable design features to meet the local housing objectives.

Urban Design Study

Clause 5.12 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives which applications are to consider as part of an urban design study. The applicant’s Urban Design Study is included as Attachment 3 and details the key built form references and details of the streetscape and surrounding area considered within the proposal, including the following:

· Face brick as a predominant feature of the streetscape seen in the facades of dwellings and front fences;

· Light colours in the rendered finish of dwelling facades and in the architectural detailing on verandahs, gables roofs and the like of character dwellings along Bulwer Street;

· Breezeblock features in front fences along Bulwer Street; and

· Landscaping and canopy coverage provided in the front setback area.

As per the Street Setback and Street Walls and Fences comments above and the final comments received from the DRP Chair, the development has incorporated design features that ensure the development appropriately references and integrates with the surrounding built form context and streetscape.

Dilapidation and Engineering Report

Administration received submissions during community consultation that requested that an independent dilapidation report be completed to ensure any damage to No. 384 Bulwer Street during construction can be rectified. An independent engineering report was also requested to ascertain potential undermining of No. 384 Bulwer Street’s foundations and walls and the extent of permanent grout injection required.

The applicant has agreed to provide these reports and a condition of approval is recommended to ensure that these reports are submitted and approved by Administration prior to demolition of the existing dwelling.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5.2 No. 58 (Lot: 301 & 302; D/P: 34680) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn - Single House (Amendment to Approved)

Ward: North

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Proposed Development Plans ⇩

3. Minutes of the 5 March 2019 and 2 April 2019 Ordinary Meetings of Council ⇩

4. State Administrative Tribunal Decision Notice and Approved Plans ⇩

5. Summary of Submissions - Administration Response ⇩

6. Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a proposed Single House (Amendment to Approved) at No. 58 (Lot: 301 & 302; D/P: 34680) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions:

1. All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on State Administrative Tribunal decision DR 55/2019 dated 27 June 2020 continue to apply to this approval.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an amendment to a previous approval for a Single House at No. 58 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The subject site is located at No. 58 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, as shown in the location plan as included in Attachment 1.

A Single House was approved at the subject site by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 27 June 2019 and is currently under construction.

The proposed development application seeks amendments to the previously approved development.

These amendments include the introduction of a spiral staircase located to the rear of the development site. The staircase would provide pedestrian access from the rear backyard to the first floor internal terrace. The first floor terrace is currently only accessible from the internal staircase.

All other aspects of the development remain as per the previous approval. It is not within the scope of this application to re-consider the acceptability of the overall design of the development and its impact on the streetscape or locality. This application may only consider the amendments proposed.

The proposed development plans are included in Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:	Caitlin Kyron
Applicant:	Urbanista Town Planning
Date of Application:	24 July 2020
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R30
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Single House
Lot Area:	Lot 301: 374 square metres Lot 302: 250 square metres Total Lot Area: 624 square metres
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is bound by Kalgoorlie Street to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south. The surrounding residential developments are single-storey and two-storey single houses. On the opposite side of Kalgoorlie Street are single-storey and two-storey single houses and grouped dwelling developments (refer to the location plan included in Attachment 1).

The subject site and adjoining properties are zoned Residential R30 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are within the Residential Built Form Area as prescribed under the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

Previous Approval

An application for a Single House was lodged with the City on 3 October 2018. The development application was presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 5 March 2019. The application was deferred by Council to enable the applicant time to address Council’s reasons for deferral relating to the front façade, engagement to the streetscape and the overall bulk of the development.

The applicant submitted an application for review to the State Administrative Tribunal for a deemed refusal on 7 March 2019. On 22 March 2019 the applicant provided the City and the SAT with written consent to proceed with the determination of the application at the 2 April 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council based on a set of amended plans that sought to address Council’s reasons for deferral.

The amended development plans were presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 April 2019 and the application was refused. The Minutes of the 5 March 2019 and 2 April 2019 Ordinary Meetings of Council are included in Attachment 3.

The application proceeded to a final hearing at the SAT on 14 June 2019. The SAT resolved to set aside Council’s decision made on 2 April 2019 and approved the development subject to conditions on 27 June 2019. A copy of the SAT Decision Notice and the approved plans are included as Attachment 4.

A Building Permit was issued in April 2020 the Single House is currently under construction.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the amended proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Previously approved	Requires further Discretion
Street Setback	ü
Front Fence		ü
Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall			ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Open Space	ü
Outdoor Living Areas	ü
Landscaping	ü
Privacy			ü
Parking & Access	ü
Solar Access			ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls	ü
Essential Facilities	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Surveillance	ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council are as follows:

Lot Boundary Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Clause 5.2 The spiral staircase requires a 1.1m setback to the southern lot boundary.	The spiral staircase provides a 0.7m setback to the southern lot boundary.
Visual Privacy
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.1 Screening devices are to be 1.6m in height, at least 75% obscure and permanently fixed to restrict view in the direction of overlooking to any adjoining property.	The proposal has provided 1.6m screens around the perimeter of the first floor internal terrace. All of these screens are at least 75% obscure. All screens are permanently fixed with the exception of the gate, which is openable to provide access to the spiral staircase.
Solar Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.2 Shadow projection permitted to southern adjoining properties: 35%.	Shadow projection to Lot 303: 71.8%.

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 19 August 2020 and concluding on 1 September 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to five surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1, and a notice on the City’s website.

The City received 10 submissions, all objecting to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

· Adverse impacts of building bulk to adjoining properties;

· Adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties;

· Overlooking to adjoining properties;

· Overshadowing to adjoining properties; and

· Lack of deep soil zones and the impact this would have on local amenity.

Following the consultation period, the applicant responded to the objections through the submission of amended plans, which involved the following modifications:

· Increased deep soil areas to the rear of the site. This increased the deep soil zones provided on-site from 13.2 percent to 18 percent; and

· Provision of additional 1.6 metre high privacy screens located on the sides of the spiral staircase landing; and

· Provision of a 1.6 metre high self-closing privacy screen gate to external perimeter of the first floor internal terrace.

A summary of all of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each is provided in Attachment 5. The applicant also provided a written response to the submissions received, as provided in Attachment 6.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Not required

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

In accordance with Schedule 2, Clause 76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The application is being referred to Council for determination in accordance with the City’s Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments.

The application proposes to amend a development approval previously determined by Council that proposes further departures to deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes Volume 1 and the Built Form Policy. The proposal also received more than five objections during the consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Lot Boundary Setbacks

The spiral staircase is proposed to be setback 0.7 metres from the southern lot boundary in lieu of the 1.1 metre deemed-to-comply standard set in the R Codes Volume 1.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the aesthetic impact and building bulk of the staircase, and impacts relating to amenity, overlooking and overshadowing. The southern adjoining property did not provide comments in relation to the reduced setback and subsequent impacts to their property. The southern adjoining property affected by the lot boundary setback departure did not provide comments in relation to setback impact to their property.

The proposed lot boundary setback meets the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The staircase is only 2.2 metres in length and due to curve of the structure, only a small portion of the structure is setback 0.7 metres from the southern boundary. The setback provided increases from the southern boundary as the stairs curve; The curved design of the staircase creates visual interest when viewed from the southern adjoining property and the open nature of the structure reduces impacts of building bulk;

· All other walls to the southern lot boundary meet the deemed-to-comply setbacks provided under the R Codes Volume 1.

· The shadow from the spiral staircase falls onto an outbuilding located on the southern property. The reduced setback from the spiral staircase does not restrict sunlight to major openings or the rear outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property;

· Staircases are not subject to cone of vision setback requirements of the R Codes Clause 5.4.1 Visual Privacy as they do not fall within the R Code definitions of habitable rooms or active habitable spaces. This is because staircases are occupied infrequently, without noise, and by relatively few people, therefore being more easily tolerated than overlooking from active areas. The provision of privacy screens along the southern edge of the first floor terrace and landing of the staircase ensure there is no overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the southern adjoining property.

Solar Access

The R Codes Volume 1 permit 35 percent shadowing to the site area of adjoining properties coded R30.

The previously approved shadow was 70.8 percent of the site area of Lot 303 Kalgoorlie Street. The shadow has since increased by 2.5 square metres as a result of proposed spiral staircase, resulting in a total shadow of 71.8 percent to Lot 303 Kalgoorlie Street.

The City received objections during community consultation with concerns relating to the amount of shadowing proposed to adjoining properties and subsequent loss of direct sunlight. The southern adjoining property affected by the shadow did not provide comments in relation to overshadowing impacts to their property.

The proposal meets the Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· While the shadow projection falls across two lots to the south of the subject site, there is only one single house (No. 56 Kalgoorlie Street Mount Hawthorn) constructed across the two lots affected. The two lots have not been recently subdivided, and have existed in their current form for a number of decades. The immediately affected lot (Lot: 303) is 248 square metres and does not meet current site area requirements for a R30 coded site. It is also likely that this lot would be largely overshadowed from a compliant development due to its unfavourable location, dimensions and orientation;

· If Lot 303 and Lot 23 were to be amalgamated to a total site area of 751 square metres, the proposed development would shadow 28.2 percent of the site and would meet the deemed-to-comply requirements for Clause 5.4.2 Solar Access of the R Codes. The development provides a sufficient shadow projection to the adjoining southern site.

Visual Privacy

The R Codes Volume 1 require screening devices to be 1.6m in height, at least 75 percent obscure and permanently fixed to restrict view in the direction of overlooking to any adjoining property.

The proposal has provided 1.6m screens around the perimeter of the first floor internal terrace. All of these screens including the gate are at least 75 percent obscure. All screens are permanently fixed with the exception of the gate, which is openable to provide access to the spiral staircase.

As the gate is not permanently fixed, overlooking from the first floor terrace to the adjoining property at No. 55 The Boulevard, Mount Hawthorn is possible when the gate is open. This results in a variation to the R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.1 - C1.2.

The proposed overlooking meets the Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· As shown in the below perspective, the development provides 1.6 metre privacy screens to all sides of the first floor terrace. 1.6 metre high privacy screens are also provided on the sides of the spiral staircase landing in effort to further reduce any overlooking to adjoining properties;

· As a result of the privacy screens provided to the first floor internal terrace, only 2.5 square metres of the adjoining eastern property at No. 55 The Boulevard is overlooked when the gate is open. This overlooking falls over an outbuilding roof and open space area that is well separated from the dwelling and the primary outdoor living area of No. 55 The Boulevard Street, Mount Hawthorn;

· The plans indicate the gate is self-closing to ensure the gate would only be open when someone is accessing the terrace or stairs. The privacy screens and self-closing gate provided ensures no direct overlooking to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas of adjoining properties that are considered to be sensitive areas; and

Location of privacy screens to first floor internal terrace and spiral staircase

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5.3 No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth - Two Grouped Dwellings

Ward: North

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Development Plans ⇩

3. Urban Design Study ⇩

4. Environmentally Sustainable Design Study ⇩

5. Administration Streetscape Analysis ⇩

6. Applicant Justification ⇩

7. Summary of Submissions - Administration Response ⇩

8. Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for Two Grouped Dwellings at No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed street setback of proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 does not meet the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.1 of the City’s Built Form Policy 7.1.1 – Built Form and Design Principles of Clause P5.1.2 (P2.1 and P2.2) of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The reduced setback and street interface of the dwellings does not preserve or enhance the visual character of the existing streetscape;

2. The proposed open space does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.4 (P4) of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The reduced open space contributes to the reduced street setback, resulting in a development that would not incorporate suitable open space to reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character or reduce the impacts of building bulk on Deague Court;

3. The proposed setback of the garages of Lot 1 and Lot 2 do not meet the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.4 of the City’s Built Form Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and Design Principles of Clause P5.2.1 (P1) of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The setback of the garages in line with the predominant building line of the dwellings does not preserve or enhances the visual character of the existing streetscape and does not reduce vehicle access points to the street; and

4. As a consequence of the departures sought in relation to street setback, open space and setback of garages, the proposed development is not consistent with the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it:

4.1 Is not compatible with its setting Clause 67(m);

4.2 Would have an adverse amenity impact and detrimental impact on the character of the locality Clause 67(n); and

4.3 Would not enhance the amenity and character of the existing neighbourhood and is not compatible with the established area in accordance with the objectives of the Scheme.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two grouped dwellings at No. 2 Deague Court, North Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes two grouped dwellings in a side by side configuration, with vehicle and pedestrian access achieved from Deague Court. The dwellings are proposed to a building height of two storeys. The proposed development plans have been included as Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:	Quentin Chester
Applicant:	Quentin Chester
Date of Application:	3 June 2020
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Residential R Code: R60
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Grouped Dwelling
Lot Area:	397m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	Not applicable

The subject site is bound by Deague Court to the south, single and two storey dwellings to the east and north. An unconstructed dedicated road is located to the west of the site, and is currently used in conjunction with Charles Veryard Reserve as an additional portion of public open space. The City does not have plans to construct and formalise this road connection. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

The subject site and the adjoining properties to the north, east and south are zoned Residential R60 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). Charles Veryard Reserve to the west is reserved Public Open Space under LPS2. The subject site and the adjoining properties to the north, east and south are within the Residential Built Form Area and have a building height limit of three storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Street Setback		ü
Lot Boundary Setback		ü
Building Height	ü
Open Space		ü
Street Surveillance	ü
Setback of Garages and Carports		ü
Outdoor Living Areas		ü
Landscaping (R Codes)	ü
Visual Privacy	ü
Car Parking & Vehicle Access	ü
Solar Access	ü
Site Works and Retaining Walls	ü
External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities	ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

Street Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
The primary street setback is to be the average of the five properties adjoining the proposed development: 6.3 metre average setback. Walls on upper floors setback a minimum of 2 metres behind the ground floor predominant building line (excluding any porch or verandah), as determined by the City. Balconies on upper floors setback a minimum of 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line (excluding any porch or verandah), as determined by the City. A porch, balcony, verandah, chimney or the equivalent may project not more than 1m into the street setback area.	Ground Floor Studio/Garage: 3.0 metres Upper Floor Balcony: 2.5 metres Living: 5.1 metres Upper floor projects 0.5 metres forward of ground floor alignment Nil (0 metre) setback of balcony behind ground floor Balcony projects more than 1 metre into front setback
Lot Boundary Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Unit 1 West Balcony – Bath: 3.2 metres Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 5.7 metres Unit 2 West Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 2.8 metres Lot Boundary Walls Boundary walls to two (2) sides Maximum height: 3.5 metres Average height: 3.0 metres	Unit 1 West Balcony – Bath: 1.5 metre Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 2.6 metres Unit 2 East Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 2.6 metres Lot boundary Walls Lot boundary walls to three (3) sides Unit 1 (Entry) Maximum height : 3.9 metres Average height : 3.85 metres Unit 2 (Entry) Maximum height : 3.2 metres Average height : 3.1 metres
Open Space
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
40% open space	Unit 1 38.4% open space Unit 2 37.8% open space
Setback of Garages & Carports
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Garages are to be setback a minimum of 500mm behind the dwelling alignment (excluding any porch, portico, verandah, balcony or the like)	Unit 1 and Unit 2 Garages project forward of dwelling alignment
Outdoor Living Areas
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Minimum length and width dimension of 4m	Unit 1 and Unit 2 3.4 metre minimum dimension

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 31 August 2020 and closing on 14 September 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications with 10 letters sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, 25 submissions were received, 23 were received in support of the proposal from surrounding properties and 2 were received in objection. The key concerns raised in objection to the proposal are summarised as follows:

· Concerns regarding Unit 2 rear facing windows in ensuite overlooking neighbouring dwelling;

· Concerns regarding Unit 2 rear fencing master bedroom partially overlooks neighbouring dwelling;

· Oppose ground and upper floor setbacks proposed;

· Concerns regarding privacy to habitable rooms from balconies;

· Consistency of dwellings with original constructions in Deague Court;

· Strongly oppose garage not setback behind dwelling; and

· Issues with parking in the street and how this will be managed with new dwellings and during construction.

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 7. The applicant’s written justification for the proposal, as well as written response to the submissions received are provided as Attachment 6 and Attachment 8 respectively.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The application was referred to a member of the City’s Design Review Panel (DRP) for comments on the initial plans which proposed two dwellings addressing Deague Court as the primary street. The City arranged an onsite meeting with the City officers, the applicant and the DRP member to resolve fundamental built form and site planning issues associated with the proposed garage width, street setback and upper floor overhang. During the onsite meeting, the City and DRP member raised queries with the applicant as to whether alternative site configurations had been contemplated, to alleviate the dominance of the double garages addressing Deague Court and to allow for a northern aspect to outdoor living areas for both dwellings.

Following this meeting the DRP member drafted a preliminary design for a battle axe configuration which was provided to the applicant for review and consideration, which demonstrated opportunities to utilise the northern aspect and locate vehicle access via a shared driveway, screened from the street. The applicant reviewed the battleaxe concept but ultimately decided to maintain a side by side lot configuration with the dwellings addressing Deague Court.

The applicant submitted amended plans following the DRP members initial review, these plans are included in Attachment 2 and were referred back to the DRP, with the following comments being provided:

· Street setback is not consistent with established setbacks in the streetscape, and the reduced setback has potential to reduce privacy and open space;

· Landscape planning and the space provided requires further review to provide increased canopy coverage;

· The location of the dwelling entry behind the garage and upper floor does not reduce impact of upper storey massing to street frontages, this is inconsistent with the established streetscape, where front setbacks play a major part;

· While some articulation, stepping and shift in material and colour has been provided, it is minimal and does not offset the departures proposed;

· Based on the current design proposed, the location of the garage and front balcony does appear to present a high level of bulk to the street and neighbouring dwellings. The garage placement along with general massing does not appear to be consistent with adjoining setbacks and is set forward of the adjoining properties further contributing to the bulk of the dwelling. While improved passive surveillance is provided with the studio at the ground level this portion of the building is in line with the garage and does not provide any articulation at the ground level and is effectively viewed as part of the garage form. Further refinement of materials, colours and size of glazing should be considered to define form;

· Due to the placement of stores and bathrooms on the northern end of the dwellings, access to north light has been limited impacts future occupant amenity.

The applicant was provided a copy of the DRP Chair’s comments which also included some suggested design modifications, however did not seek to make any modifications to the proposal.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being presented to Council at the written request of the applicant.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

The Built Form Policy requires walls on upper floors to be setback 2 metres behind, and balconies to be setback 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line. The development proposes a street setback of 3 metres to the garage and studio on the ground floor, and 2.5 metres to the balcony on the upper floor, projecting forward of the ground floor predominant building line in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 6.3 metre setback.

The applicant’s written justification for the proposed street setback is summarised as follows:

· Work has been done to create a dwelling with an exceedance of interaction between the private domain and the adjacent public open space;

· Deague Court is a streetscape that is undergoing transition as intended under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to provide infill development. Consideration of the intended higher density and future use of the site and surrounding area should be considered;

· The proposed 3 metre setback is considerate and pragmatic of the intended future R60 use and desired requirements. Development and siting of garage is driven by both infrastructure easements and the previous determinations of Council to minimise visual impact of garages under Clause 5.2.2 of the Residential Design Codes;

· The R Codes Table 1 requires a 2 metre setback, and the application is seeking 3 metres. The required setback does however call for a sound and logical planning outcome where the setbacks are ‘stepped’ down the street towards the eventual 1 metre.

The applicant has also provided justification with respect to the built form outcome of the dwellings in the form of an urban design study which is included as Attachment 4. The study details the built form justification and references provided by the applicant are summarised:

· There is no streetscape to consider as the target radium is under transition. The dominant streetscape is already ‘modern contemporary’;

· Proximity to Transit Corridor and character of recent adjacent development to Kayle Street means a fair argument is to be made future development will be of a multiple rather than grouped dwelling nature;

· There is a clear development trend that has resulted in two storey side by side development with garages;

· Against a three storey height limit, the height proposed is highly considerable;

· The design is very responsive to an active streetscape offering significant open frontage to the adjacent park, and between public and private spaces; and

· The most significant surrounding context relates to the public open space and established trees. Both have been incorporated by sympathetic timber materials.

The proposed street setback is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy, and is not acceptable for the following reasons:

· The ground floor setback of both dwellings would be 3 metres from the street boundary, forward of the 6.3 metre average street setback. The first floor balconies of both dwellings would be setback 2.5 metres from the street boundary, being 0.5 metres forward of the ground floor setback. The dwellings with cantilevering upper floor balconies would sit well forward of, and would not be consistent with, the existing dwellings in the streetscape;

· The proposed dwellings do not interpret or demonstrate a connection with the character and identity of existing dwellings within Deague Court. The concealed roof form and appearance of Unit 1 is in contrast to the physical scale and appearance of the established Deague Court streetscape and does not compliment the established streetscape character and identity;

· The upper floor projection results in lack of articulation of the dwelling which does not provide depth to the front and side elevation of the dwelling. Limited articulation to the front façade contributes to actual and perceived bulk and massing of the dwellings as viewed from neighbouring properties and the street;

· The front façades of the dwellings do not introduce varying materials, finishes and colours which provide visual breaks and articulation of the walls. Expanses of grey render and timber accents do not effectively distinguish one part of the dwelling from another. The minimal colours and materials incorporated in the design are also impacted by the incongruous window forms and sizes. These design approaches detract from positive and consistent built form outcomes and do not create visual interest to reduce the impact of building bulk of the development on the streetscape;

· The upper floor balconies cantilever 0.5 metres forward of the ground floor results in vertical and horizontal massing of the development within the street setback area forward of neighbouring dwellings, detracting from the established setbacks and built form of neighbouring dwellings and Deague Court;

· Although only a single garage is proposed to each dwelling, the massing of development from the garage and studio creates the appearance of blank facades which project forward of the average street setback accounting for 79 percent of the overall lot frontage, imposing bulk on the street and public realm;

· The location and projection of the garage partially obscures the entry and porch of the dwelling and as a result the garage presents as the main arrival point and dominant component of the dwelling as viewed from the street;

· Administration has undertaken a streetscape analysis of Deague Court and determined that the area consists of predominantly single and two storey dwellings of a similar built form character, materiality and architectural design. This analysis depicting images of existing dwellings that form the character of the streetscape has been included as Attachment 5. Key elements of the streetscape as observed by Administration include:

o Pitched roof forms;

o Facebrick of varying colours and earthy tones;

o Single car garages and carports located behind the predominant building line; and

o Balcony details projecting forward of the ground floor dwelling alignment;

The development does not incorporate design features such as contrasting colours and materials, articulations of walls and stepping of the upper floor behind the predominant ground floor building line to reduce the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street. As per the final comments received from the DRP Chair, the proposal does not reflect a development scale, materiality and setback which is compatible within its setting and is unsympathetic to the established and emerging streetscape.

Lot Boundary Setbacks

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards along the western boundary on the ground and first floors to Unit 1. The proposed western boundary setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The reduced setbacks to the western boundary are to the unconstructed dedicated road and public open space (Charles Veryard Reserve). The reduced setback does not have detrimental to the visual privacy and residential amenity of the neighbouring site, as the western elevation does not abut development of a residential nature;

· The upper floor of the dwelling is stepped back to a 2.6 metre setback from the western boundary, 0.8 metres behind the ground floor. A stepped setback provides articulation and separation between the ground and upper floors. The façade also features major openings and highlight windows to the dining room, kitchen and bedrooms break up the western façade, and mitigate impacts of building bulk as viewed from the public realm; and

· The orientation of the dwelling ensures the reduced setback does not exacerbate overshadowing to neighbouring dwellings. The reduced setback does not compromise access to sunlight and ventilation for the occupants of the dwelling or neighbouring dwellings.

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards of bed 1 to ensuite along the eastern boundary on the first floor of Unit 2. The proposed western boundary setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The lot boundary setback is to the overall wall length of the dwelling. The eastern elevation of Unit 2 is stepped at a 1.5 metre to 3.8 metre setback. The eastern elevation is well articulated and incorporates mixed materials such as cladding, render and louvre window treatments to the ground and upper floors to provide visual interest and reduce the appearance of solid, blank walls;

· The reduced eastern setback abuts the bedroom, bathroom and laundries of the neighbouring dwellings. Two openings are existing, these are to the bathroom and laundry which are not habitable rooms. As no major openings to habitable rooms are proposed, there are no implications on visual and privacy amenity for the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling;

· The reduced lot boundary setback does not exacerbate impacts of overlooking on the adjacent property as no major openings from habitable rooms are proposed which fall outside of the lot boundaries. The proposed setback does not result in an adverse impact on the neighbouring property in terms of visual privacy; and

· The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements in regards to solar access, and the reduced lot boundary setback does not result in unacceptable overshadowing to the adjoining eastern property.

Lot Boundary Setbacks - Lot Boundary Walls

The application proposes boundary walls to the northern, western and eastern boundaries. The deemed-to-comply provisions permit a boundary wall length of 14 metres, with an average height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres up to two lot boundaries. The acceptability of the boundary walls proposed are detailed below.

West – Unit 1

The boundary wall proposed to the entry portion of the dwelling is proposed with an average height of 3.85 metres and a maximum height of 3.9 metres. The western boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The proposed boundary wall abuts the unconstructed dedicated road and Charles Veryard Reserve to the west. The wall is located behind the street setback and is not considered to impact the amenity of the adjoining reserve;

· The remainder of the western elevation is setback from the boundary and incorporates varying contrasting render to reduce the bulk of the development to the adjacent property. Openings to the living/dining and activity rooms reduce the portions of blank solid wall to the western elevation;

· The boundary wall is proposed to be constructed and finished with face brick and render, consistent with the finish found in the Deague Court streetscape;

· The property to the rear, No. 7 Hanover Place has a boundary wall with a length of 3.7 metres to the western lot boundary abutting the unconstructed dedicated road. The existing wall is of a finish and scale that is reflective of the wall proposed to Unit 1 which ensures the location and height of the boundary wall is consistent with neighbouring dwellings;

· The proposed wall is located on the western boundary and does not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling, or adversely impact adjoining property with respect to overshadowing; and

· The boundary wall does not incorporate major openings and would not result in overlooking to the adjoining site.

East – Unit 2

The boundary wall proposed to the entry portion of the ground floor of the dwelling would have an average height of 3.2 metres and a maximum height of 3.1 metres. The eastern boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The proposed boundary wall is located behind the street setback line of the dwelling, and would be partially concealed by the dwelling at No. 4 Deague Court. This would ensure the wall is not prominently located as viewed from the street;

· The proposed boundary wall is of a single storey scale, and varies in height due to the natural contours and slope of the site;

· The boundary wall does not abut the adjoining property’s primary outdoor living area or major openings to habitable rooms. The boundary wall also does not incorporate major openings and would not result in overlooking to the adjoining site. As a result the proposed boundary wall does not impact the privacy or residential amenity of the neighbouring property;

· The proposed wall is located on the eastern boundary and does not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling, or adversely impact the adjoining property with respect to overshadowing; and

· The eastern elevation incorporates contrasting render and glazing to the living/dining and activity rooms to reduce the portions of blank solid wall and perceived bulk of the development to the adjacent property.

Building on the boundary to three Lot Boundaries

The application proposes boundary walls of varying heights and lengths to the northern, western and eastern (side and rear) boundaries. Development to three boundaries would satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The total boundary wall length and locations are acceptable as they are separated into small portions on the ground floor and would be largely concealed by the existing walls of the neighbouring properties;

· The aggregate length of the boundary walls would be below the 14 metres that is permitted and would not present a continuous bulk or mass along the boundaries and from neighbouring dwellings; and

· The boundary wall to the rear of the site is to the stores of Units 1 and 2 and has a height of 2.8 metres which is compliant with the 3 metre average height and 3.5 metre maximum height permitted.

Setback of Garages & Carports

The Built Form Policy requires garages to be setback a minimum of 0.5 metres behind the dwelling alignment (excluding any porch portico verandah or balcony or the like). The proposed garages would have a 3 metre setback from Deague Court and are not stepped behind the dwelling alignment. The setback of the garages to Unit 1 and Unit 2 are not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy, and are not acceptable for the following reasons:

· The reduced setback of the garages is exacerbated by the reduced primary street setback of the dwelling, which results in the overall dwelling projecting forward of the average street setback and adjoining properties. The garage projection is considered incongruent and inconsistent with the established streetscape;

· The garages are proposed to be located in line with the studio of each dwelling, and are not stepped behind the building line so as to reduce actual and perceived appearance of vehicle parking spaces and access to the site;

· The proposed garages are stepped 0.5 metres behind the balcony of the dwellings which is inconsistent with the Built Form Policy which seeks to reduce the impact of the upper floor balconies on the streetscape by setting them back 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line. When the dwellings are viewed from the street on approach to the dwelling on the east and west, the reduced setback of the garages in conjunction with the cantilevered balconies exacerbate the vertical massing of the dwellings and does not provide sufficient articulation of the front façade to mitigate the impact of the development on the streetscape;

· The development has not incorporated design features to reduce bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street. The solid nature of the garage doors to match the colour and or finish of the ground floor façade does not provide articulation and distinction of the garage structures which creates a flat and monotonous ground floor façade in line with the dwelling alignment and contributes to the actual and perceived horizontal building bulk of the front façade at the ground floor level;

· The location and projection of the garages partially obscures the entry and porch of the dwelling and as a result the garage presents as the main arrival point and dominant component of the dwelling as viewed from the street.

Open Space

The R Codes requires developments on lots coded R60 to provide 40 percent open space. The proposed development provides 38.4 percent open space for Unit 1 and 37.8 percent open space for Unit 2. The departures to open space are not considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

· The development seeks departures to the street setback standards of the Built Form Policy, resulting in excessive building bulk to the street and neighbouring properties which is exacerbated by reduced open space provision for the site. Reduced open space to the lots, particularly within the street setback area does not provide sufficient building separation from the public realm resulting in development which is not reflective of the existing and desired streetscape character;

· As a consequence of the site planning, the units would not receive adequate access to natural sunlight as:

o The boundary walls and minor openings provided to the north limits the dwellings capacity to access northern light and provide circulation around the site;

o The parapet wall that runs along the length of the shared boundary results in the open space and major opening to habitable rooms of each unit having east or west orientation only. To Unit 1, the useability of these areas would be reduced as a result of the afternoon sun and absence of any shading. To Unit 2, the major openings are screened to prevent overlooking and are shaded due to the orientation;

o The siting of open space will limit comprehensive passive and active use of the open space and outdoor living areas in the afternoon when the area will largely be shaded by the dwelling;

· The dwellings have been designed with the garage/studio forward of the front door with a pedestrian path alongside, this has provided limited opportunity for future location of external fixtures such as power boards to be provided in an accessible location and will likely result in this being located on the approach to the dwelling within the front setback. Location of external fixtures has not been shown on the development plans as such assessment against clause 5.4.4 External fixtures, utilities and facilities has not been undertaken;

· The site is within a three storey dwelling height area, designing a dwelling to the permitted height could provide greater opportunity for optimising dwelling orientation to the northern aspect and reducing the dwelling footprint to provide increased useable open space areas around the dwelling.

Outdoor Living Areas

The R Codes requires dwellings to be provided with an outdoor living area with a minimum length and width dimension of 4 metres. The application proposes a 3.4 metre width for the outdoor living areas of Unit 1 and Unit 2. The outdoor living areas satisfy the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

· The overall size of the outdoor living areas for the dwellings exceed the 16 square metre deemed to comply requirement, providing 45 square metres of accessible and useable outdoor living spaces;

· The outdoor living areas provided are accessible from a habitable room, the living and dining rooms of the dwelling, meeting the deemed-to-comply requirement and ensuring the space provided is accessible and usable for the occupants of the dwellings;

· The outdoor living areas to each dwelling are uncovered spaces which are shaded by the tree planting proposed (Crepe Myrtle – Lagerstroemia Indica). The open nature of the alfresco spaces for adequate ventilation to the dwelling;

· Although the outdoor living area of Unit 1 is located to address Charles Veryard Reserve, the outdoor living area provided is appropriately screened for privacy and acoustics by the proposed street wall;

· The location of the outdoor living areas allows the clothes drying areas to be contained to the rear of the dwellings (screened from public view). The location and scale of the outdoor living are considered to be a better outcome for the dwelling and broader locale than clothes drying and services areas which may appear obtrusive;

· The proposed dwelling does not compromise the amenity and use of the adjacent properties. The proposed outdoor living area provided meets the visual privacy deemed-to-comply requirements.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Clause 5.11 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives relating to environmentally sustainable design. The applicant was advised of the City’s environmentally sustainable design objectives however, elected to not provide a lifecycle assessment report or recognised equivalent to satisfy local housing objective 1.8.6 of the Built Form Policy.

The applicant has provided written justification addressing the remaining environmentally sustainable design local housing objectives (1.8.1 - 1.8.5) which is included in Attachment 4, to demonstrate how the development has incorporated features of environmentally sustainable design and satisfied these local housing objectives. The applicant’s written justification is summarised as follows:

· The dwelling is to be constructed of high thermal performance double brick and concrete materials with high solar mass. West and South exterior cavity walls will be insulated;

· Dwellings have oversize 800mm eaves upper, and an additional 800mm lower overhang eave;

· In response to overshadowing from the north to 25 percent of the block, the site is oriented around open space light wells open to the north and shaded to the south;

· The south/south western orientation is utilised to take advantage of predominant south western wind direction to allow natural ventilation to the dwellings;

· The side by side construction limits the potential for light and ventilation to unit 2 which has east facing openings only;

· Openable windows and ceiling fans to all living areas and bedrooms in lieu of air-conditioning use;

· Southern aspect oriented around large deep covered balconies that provide a high level of shading to any south glazing into living spaces; and

· No flat roof structures, all roofs have a 26.5 percent pitch.

The development has not provided a Lifecycle Assessment and does not to address the relevant local housing objective of the Built Form Policy.

Administration has considered the constraints of the site and the site planning and is satisfied that the initiatives outlined in the applicant’s written justification included in Attachment 4 would meet the objectives of LPS2 specifically, to promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5.4 Public Health Plan 2020 - 2025 - Outcome of Public Consultation

Attachments: 1. Community and Stakeholder Consultation - 19 August - 11 September 2020 - Draft Public Health ⇩

2. City of Vincent Public Health Plan - 2020 - 2025 ⇩

3. Health Services Policy Review ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the public comment submissions received in relation to the Draft Public Health Plan in Attachment 1;

2. ADOPTS the Public Health Plan with minor amendments included as Attachment 2;

3. NOTES that following adoption, the Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025 will be modified to improve formatting, styling and graphic design, as determined by the Chief Executive Officer; and

4. APPROVES the repeal of the following health policies at Attachment 3;

4.1 Policy No. 3.8.4 – Safe Needle Syringe Collection and Disposal Strategy;

4.2 Policy No. 3.8.6 – Public Buildings - Use of Open Fires;

4.3 Policy No. 3.8.8 – Rodent and Vermin Control - Assistance to Ratepayers;

4.4 Policy No. 3.8.9 – Healthy Vincent; and

4.5 Policy No. 3.8.10 – Food Act 2008.

Purpose of Report:

To consider submissions received during the recent public consultation period (Attachment 1) on the City’s Draft Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025. To seek Council adoption of the Plan (Attachment 2) and to approve the repeal of five health policies (Attachment 3).

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 18 August 2020, it was resolved that Council:

1. APPROVES the draft Public Health Plan 2020-2025 at Attachment 1 for public comment for a period of 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation in Attachment 1; subject to

1.1 Amending the target to read “smoke free town centres by 2025’; and

1.2 the term ‘lifestyle choices’ being replaced with either ‘health behaviours’ or ‘behavioural determinants’, where applicable dependent on context.

2. NOTES:

2.1 a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council in October 2020 detailing any submissions received during the public comments period; and

2.2 the draft Public Health Plan 2020–2025 will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution on 18 August 2020, the Draft Public Health Plan (the Plan) was advertised for public comment for a period of 23 days between 19 August and 11 September 2020. The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness during the public comment period:

· Project page and online survey on the City’s Imagine Vincent portal;

· Notices on the City’s website, social media channels and the City’s August e-Newsletter;

· Public Notice in Stirling-Vincent Reporter and Perth Voice local newspapers;

· Direct emails to previous survey respondents and stakeholders consulted during preparation of the Plan;

· Direct e-mails to City of Vincent town teams;

· Direct phone calls to licenced business owners; and

· In person engagement with customers at Beatty Park Leisure Centre and Vincent Library & Local History Centre.

Community and stakeholder consultation

The comments received during the community consultation period have been collated along with Administration responses within Attachment 1. A total of 56 comments were received during the consultation period, including:

· 33 community responses via Imagine Vincent survey and direct e-mails;

· 8 submissions by health-based organisations – North Metropolitan Public Health Unit, Mental Health Commission, Cancer Council WA, Heart Foundation, Australian Medical Association, Australian Council on Smoking and Health, Communicable Disease Control Directorate (Department of Health), and Injury Matters; and

· 15 liquor licenced business owners were contacted by telephone as a preliminary survey to gauge their response to the target of Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025.

The level of community support for the Public Health Plan was 93 percent, with 85 percent of people supporting the smoke-free target, as demonstrated in the following table. As expected, health-based organisations support both the Plan and the target, and are willing to support the City to achieve the deliverables of the Plan.

· Overall, do you support the City’s Draft Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025?	· Total	· Percentage
· Yes	· 28	· 93%
· No	· 1	· 3%
· Unsure	· 1	· 3%
· Do you support the target of ‘Smoke-Free Town Centres by 2025’?	· Total	· Percentage
· Yes	· 29	· 85%
· No	· 3	· 9%
· Unsure	· 2	· 6%

Sixty percent of licensed business owners who participated in a preliminary survey either supported or would consider the smoke-free target, as demonstrated in the following table. This industry sector would be engaged further during the development of the framework to support the target. It appears most businesses do not have a designated smoking area, and of those who do, more than half are located on private land.

· Licensed business owners support the target of ‘Smoke-Free Town Centres by 2025’	· Total	· Percentage
· Yes	· 7	· 47%
· No	· 6	· 40%
· Consider – Would require further information	· 2	· 13%

Changes to the Plan

Minor changes to the Plan are recommended in response to the comments received within Attachment 1. The following table details the changes to the Plan and the reasons why. Please note the bold text is the new text for the Plan from the original wording.

Health Pillar	Proposed changes	Reason
Public Health Leadership · Page 19 · Priority area 4	‘Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025’ has now been included as a priority area in the action plan with three deliverables including: · 4.1 - Design and implement a smoke-free Town Centre project which considers policy and regulatory options with involvement from health partners and local businesses. · 4.2 - Deliver a public awareness campaign to focus on the benefits of smoke-free environments. · 4.3 - Review proposals to introduce new smoke-free environments on City owned land.	· The deliverables will support the target of Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025. · The deliverables were recommended by stakeholders.
Social Environment · Page 20 · Priority area 5	The deliverable has been updated to · 5.1 - Increase healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.	· Public open spaces has been included within the deliverable to capture all environments within the City.
Built Environment · Page 21 · Priority area 13	The deliverable has been updated to · Support and partner with external stakeholders to deliver programs to seniors including reducing injuries associated with falls.	· The original deliverable appeared to limit programs for seniors to only addressing falls (comments from an external stakeholder). · Administration intends to partner with external stakeholders to achieve this deliverable.
Natural Environment · Page 21 · Priority area 15	The deliverable has been updated to · 15.1 - Deliver active and passive parks, playgrounds and additional public open spaces for all ages and abilities to enjoy.	· In response to comments from an external stakeholder and local resident, this deliverable has been changed to ensure all ages and abilities are identified when designing, creating and updating public open space.
The long term health outcome for ’15.3 - Partner with organisations to develop and implement sun protection strategies’ has been updated to: · Reduced exposure to ultraviolet radiation.	· The original outcome was 'increased physical activity'. · Recommendation from an external stakeholder provided administration with a more suitable health outcome.
Health Protection · Page 23 · Priority area 18	The deliverable has been updated to · 18.2 - Support the implementation of alcohol and or smoke free environments including festivals, events, activities and or clubs.	· It was suggested the original deliverable was too broad. · The deliverable has been changed to ensure it is more targeted.
The deliverable has been updated to · 18.4 - Advocate for reduced exposure to alcohol and tobacco advertising, marketing, promotion and sponsorship.	· The original deliverable has been changed to include sponsorship.

Health Pillar

Proposed changes

Reason

Public Health Leadership

· Page 19

· Priority area 4

‘Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025’ has now been included as a priority area in the action plan with three deliverables including:

· 4.1 - Design and implement a smoke-free Town Centre project which considers policy and regulatory options with involvement from health partners and local businesses.

· 4.2 - Deliver a public awareness campaign to focus on the benefits of smoke-free environments.

· 4.3 - Review proposals to introduce new smoke-free environments on City owned land.

· The deliverables will support the target of Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025.

· The deliverables were recommended by stakeholders.

Social Environment

· Page 20

· Priority area 5

The deliverable has been updated to

· 5.1 - Increase healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.

· Public open spaces has been included within the deliverable to capture all environments within the City.

Built Environment

· Page 21

· Priority area 13

The deliverable has been updated to

· Support and partner with external stakeholders to deliver programs to seniors including reducing injuries associated with falls.

· The original deliverable appeared to limit programs for seniors to only addressing falls (comments from an external stakeholder).

· Administration intends to partner with external stakeholders to achieve this deliverable.

Natural Environment

· Page 21

· Priority area 15

The deliverable has been updated to

· 15.1 - Deliver active and passive parks, playgrounds and additional public open spaces for all ages and abilities to enjoy.

· In response to comments from an external stakeholder and local resident, this deliverable has been changed to ensure all ages and abilities are identified when designing, creating and updating public open space.

The long term health outcome for ’15.3 - Partner with organisations to develop and implement sun protection strategies’ has been updated to:

· Reduced exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

· The original outcome was 'increased physical activity'.

· Recommendation from an external stakeholder provided administration with a more suitable health outcome.

Health Protection

· Page 23

· Priority area 18

The deliverable has been updated to

· 18.2 - Support the implementation of alcohol and or smoke free environments including festivals, events, activities and or clubs.

· It was suggested the original deliverable was too broad.

· The deliverable has been changed to ensure it is more targeted.

The deliverable has been updated to

· 18.4 - Advocate for reduced exposure to alcohol and tobacco advertising, marketing, promotion and sponsorship.

· The original deliverable has been changed to include sponsorship.

Smoke-free town centres by 2025

One of the first priorities of the Plan will be to develop a project plan detailing the steps required to achieve smoke-free town centres by 2025. It is anticipated that the project plan could be delivered over two years with actions including:

· Develop partnerships and engage with local businesses and public health stakeholders to scope out the project and encourage local businesses and residents to become smoke-free advocates;

· Consider policy and regulatory options including enshrining the target in a Local Law;

· Create a map with clear descriptions of smoke-free Town Centre boundaries and signage;

· Deliver a public awareness campaign to focus on benefits of reduced second hand smoke in public areas including increased health of our community, decreased litter and improved air quality;

· Monitor exposure of second-hand smoke during regular assessments in Town Centres, cigarette butt counts, feedback and complaints through local businesses and community members, and reviewing local businesses promotion of smoke-free town centre messages;

· Review proposals to introduce new smoke-free environments on City owned land;

· Advocate for local businesses to make their private land smoke-free, considering designated smoking areas are currently permitted on licensed and other premises; and

· Embed the smoke-free Town Centre target into future City plans and strategies.

Actions throughout 2020/2021 financial year

As well as focusing on the smoke-free target in the first year of the Plan, it is anticipated the following deliverables would also be a focus of Administration:

· Civic Leadership

Deliverable 1.1 - Incorporate public health, wellbeing and health equity principles and priorities into City policies, plans, reports, programs and activities.

o Embed public health implications in Council report templates; and

o Commence introduction of public health principles into new or updated City policies, plans, reports, programs and activities.

· Public awareness and engagement

Deliverable 3.2 - Develop a communication plan to inform, engage and educate residents, visitors, businesses and community organisations on the priority health topics for the City.

· Healthy Eating

Deliverable 5.1 - Increase healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.

o Research the development of a healthy food and drink framework to include catering for venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.

· Alcohol and smoking

Deliverable 18.1 - Develop partnerships with the community, organisations and licenced premises to reduce the risk of antisocial behaviour and alcohol related harm in the community.

Deliverable 18.2 - Support the implementation of alcohol and or smoke free environments including festivals, events, activities and or clubs.

o Review and update the City's Health policies 3.8.3 Concerts and events; and 3.8.7 Alcohol Management; and

o Research evidence based projects and programs that could help with reducing risks of antisocial behaviour and alcohol related harm in the community.

· COVID-19 recovery

Public health recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic is an important theme in the Plan and has been incorporated into many deliverables within the Plan.

o Examine ways the City can support mental health and wellbeing of the community;

o Focusing on community activities, programs and events that encourage social connection and reduce isolation;

o Supporting our priority population groups who may have been more adversely impacted by the pandemic; and

o Contributing a continued public health focus in the Vincent Rebound Plan.

Health Policy Review

There are nine policies which have been adopted by Council that relate to public health. As part of the adoption of the Public Health Plan, these policies have been assessed to determine if they are still relevant and/or required. This assessment is included at Attachment 3.

It is proposed that five policies are repealed when the Plan is adopted by Council (in accordance with section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995). The contents of the policies are either superseded by the Plan; the policies are operational documents that have no legal, legislative or regulatory requirements; and/or there is the policy replicates existing legislation. These policies are:

· Policy No. 3.8.4 – Safe Needle Syringe Collection and Disposal Strategy;

· Policy No. 3.8.6 – Public Buildings - Use of Open Fires;

· Policy No. 3.8.8 – Rodent and Vermin Control - Assistance to Ratepayers;

· Policy No. 3.8.9 – Healthy Vincent; and

· Policy No. 3.8.10 – Food Act 2008.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Section 45 of the Public Health Act 2016 sets out the requirements for all local governments to prepare a Public Health Plan that applies to its local government district.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to consider adoption of the Plan.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Accessible City

Our pedestrian and cyclist networks are well designed, connected, accessible and encourage increased use.

Connected Community

We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City.

We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

Sensitive Design

Our planning framework supports quality design, sustainable urban built form and is responsive to our community and local context.

Innovative and Accountable

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Sustainable Transport

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for this financial year is $41,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $7,000 project costs). The estimated costs which will be subject to Council consideration over the next three financial years include:

· 21/22 - $59,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $25,000 project costs).

· 22/23 – $59,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $25,000 project costs).

· 23/24 – $41,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $7,000 project costs).

It should be noted that the Plan complements existing budgeted services, projects and programs. External grant funding opportunities will be sought as opportunities arise, and the City will be partnering with the Department of Health and non-government sector to share resources and progress deliverables.

Comments:

The City is committed to improving the health and wellbeing of our community, and the Plan will guide the integration of a public health focus into existing services, programs and future public health initiatives over the next five years. The implementation of the deliverables in the Plan are to be reported to Council annually, through Corporate Business Plan updates and when supporting policies and/or local laws require adoption.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5.5 Adoption of Amendments to Mobile Food Vendor Policy and Consideration of a Commercial Kiosk Proposal at Hyde Park

Attachments: 1. Summary of Community Consultation and Submissions ⇩

2. Policy No. 3.8.12 - Mobile Food Vendors Proposed Amendments ⇩

3. Plan of location of proposed Hyde Park kiosk ⇩

4. Photos of current storage shed at Hyde Park ⇩

5. Concept sketch of kiosk at Hyde Park ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the responses received during public advertising of draft Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor at Attachment 1;

2. ADOPTS the updated Mobile Food Vendor Policy at Attachment 2;

3. NOTES that the Mobile Food Vendor Policy will be converted to the new policy format following adoption; and

4. APPROVES the Chief Executive Officer consulting with the community on locating a commercial kiosk at Hyde Park in the location shown at Attachment 3.

Purpose of Report:

To consider:

· the submissions received during the recent public advertising period on the City’s draft Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor as at Attachment 1 and adopt the updated Mobile Food Vendor Policy at Attachment 2; and

· consulting with the community on locating a commercial kiosk within Hyde Park, Perth in the location shown at Attachment 3.

Background:

The Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor was first endorsed by Council for trial purposes over a three-month period following the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) held on 2 December 2014. Following the trial, the Mobile Food Vendor Policy was adopted at the OMC held on 25 August 2015, with amendments, subject to a review in 12 months.

Following the 12 month review, Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor was endorsed in its current form at the OMC held on 23 August 2016.

At the OMC held on 13 November 2018, Council resolved:

‘That Council:

1. MODIFIES the Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor by deleting Location 1 from the map of Hyde Park (Section 3, Page 3)

2. INITIATES a review of the Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors and requires a report to be presented to Council by no later than 30 April 2019 to consider a revised policy for the purposes of public consultation. That review is to consider:

2.1 Councils Approach to the use of City parks and reserves for commercial purposes;

2.2 Maximum number of hours that a vendor may remain in one location; and

2.3 Permitted trading locations throughout the district.’

A review of the Policy was undertaken by Administration and the outcomes of the review were considered by Council at the OMC held on 28 May 2019, where it was resolved:

That Council:

1. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the proposed amendments to Policy No. 3.8.12 – ‘Mobile Food Vendor’ as at Attachment 1; and

2. NOTES that at the conclusion of the public consultation period any submissions received will be presented to Council for consideration.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Policy 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor was advertised for public consultation for a period of 21 days between 22 July and 12 August 2020. The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness, including:

· Written notification to landowner/occupiers directly adjacent to Reserves listed in the Policy;

· Written notification to current permit holders;

· Notice in the Perth Voice and Guardian Express once per week for three weeks;

· Notice on the City’s website and social media platforms;

· Signage within the parks and reserves captured by the Mobile Food Vendor Policy; and

· Feedback forms (by means of submission via the Imagine Vincent campaign).

Consultation Outcomes

During the public comment period, there were 146 visitations to the Mobile Food Vendor Policy review project page through the Imagine Vincent portal. Thirty-six (36) submissions were received during the public consultation period. Of these, 26 were via the Imagine Vincent portal, eight by email, one through the City’s Contact Us website portal and one by mail.

Community feedback showed overall support for the six Policy amendments proposed on 28 May 2019, being:

1. Waste management – provision of three bins by vendors;

2. Vehicle management – safe entry and exit of vehicles;

3. Single use plastics being limited;

4. Alternative trading locations being at the discretion of the CEO;

5. An amendment to the trading location at Britannia Reserve; and

6. Trading not being permitted at Charles Veryard Reserve on Sundays.

Eighty-four percent (84 percent) of respondents agreed that mobile food vendors positively contribute to the energy and activation of the City’s parks and reserves. A summary of the online survey results and comments received on the draft amendments to the Policy with Administration responses can be found in Attachment 1.

The City also received six free text submissions from the community, which highlighted concerns relating to noise generated by the Mobile Food Vendors.

Noise complaints are typically addressed by provisions in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The assigned levels in these regulations are not applicable to receivers who are co-located in a reserve, which creates surveillance and enforcement challenges for the City’s authorised officers.

Generators are inherent to the operation of Mobile Food Vendors and in the absence of fixed power, will remain so. Administration has sought a quote to provide fixed power to the Hyde Park Trading Zone, which would cost $13,145. This has not been budgeted for in the 20/21 operational budget. There is currently no scope within the City’s fees and charges schedule to recover these costs, nor measure the usage.

It is more practical for Mobile Food Vendors to continue to provide their own power source and take measures to reduce their sound output. This approach has resolved noise complaints relating to one Vendor at Hyde Park. In this case the Vendor built an enclosure that surrounds the generator. This has reduced noise output to a level where no further complaints have been received.

Resolution of noise complaints would be further supported by Clause 1.5 which states that “Mobile Food Vendors must consider measures to reduce sound emitted by mechanical devices and/or activities associated with Mobile Food Vendor operations to mitigate potential impacts on amenity of park users”. The City would work with Vendors on a case by case basis to ensure they actively investigate and apply sound attenuation measures to the noise source (likely generator noise) to minimise the impact.

During the consultation period, feedback was also sought from internal service units which has resulted in three amendments to the Policy and is shown in Attachment 2. The following table provides a summary of these amendments with proposed wording additions shown in bold and deletions shown in ‘strikethrough’.

Further amendments to Policy	Administration comments
Clause 4.4. No waste or litter may be disposed of in ~~Council~~ City rubbish bins. Mobile Food Vendors must provide three bins (general waste, recycling and FOGO, when applicable) for collection and storage of waste generated by their business. Vendors should ~~for use and~~ ensure the area around their position is kept clear of rubbish and refuse at all times and all waste generated/collected by the Vendor should be removed from site by the vendor The City does not permit any commercial waste or waste generated by Vendors to be disposed of in public space rubbish or recycling bins; and	Wording relating to the provision of food organic and garden organic (FOGO) bins has been amended due to postponement of the introduction City’s FOGO service. This Clause will be implemented when FOGO comes into effect. Existing Vendors are aware of this provision and will be provided notice once FOGO has been introduced. All new Vendors will be advised of this requirement.
Clause 8.3: Development approval is not required for as long as all other requirements of this policy are satisfied, pursuant to cl. 61(2)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. ~~No – permanent fixtures and/or changes to the public realm are not permitted. As a result, Development Approval is not required.~~	Clause 8.3 has been amended to clarify the head of power through which development approval is not required. This will enable effective and consistent application of this Clause.
Clause 9.2.3 Public safety and comprehensiveness of information provided in the application ~~(NOTE: Vendors selling high-risk, potentially hazardous foods will not be considered)~~; and	Section 9.2.3 has been amended as food safety risks are managed under the Food Act 2008. The City’s Environmental Health Officers would review the food risk rating of each Vendor.

Further amendments to Policy

Administration comments

Clause 4.4.

No waste or litter may be disposed of in ~~Council~~ City rubbish bins. Mobile Food Vendors must provide three bins (general waste, recycling and FOGO, when applicable) for collection and storage of waste generated by their business. Vendors should ~~for use and~~ ensure the area around their position is kept clear of rubbish and refuse at all times and all waste generated/collected by the Vendor should be removed from site by the vendor The City does not permit any commercial waste or waste generated by Vendors to be disposed of in public space rubbish or recycling bins; and

Wording relating to the provision of food organic and garden organic (FOGO) bins has been amended due to postponement of the introduction City’s FOGO service. This Clause will be implemented when FOGO comes into effect.

Existing Vendors are aware of this provision and will be provided notice once FOGO has been introduced. All new Vendors will be advised of this requirement.

Clause 8.3:

Development approval is not required for as long as all other requirements of this policy are satisfied, pursuant to cl. 61(2)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

~~No – permanent fixtures and/or changes to the public realm are not permitted. As a result, Development Approval is not required.~~

Clause 8.3 has been amended to clarify the head of power through which development approval is not required.

This will enable effective and consistent application of this Clause.

Clause 9.2.3

Public safety and comprehensiveness of information provided in the application ~~(NOTE: Vendors selling high-risk, potentially hazardous foods will not be considered)~~; and

Section 9.2.3 has been amended as food safety risks are managed under the Food Act 2008.

The City’s Environmental Health Officers would review the food risk rating of each Vendor.

Whilst not included within the scope of this review, a priority health topic of the City’s Draft Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025 (the Plan) is healthy eating. Following adoption of the Plan, the City will be scoping how healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities could be improved. Policy 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor would be considered as part of this scoping exercise.

Kiosk in Hyde Park

Another option for activating Hyde Park that could be considered is a permanent kiosk which is operated commercially. Administration has considered fixed food and beverage opportunities within Hyde Park for a number of years as either an alternative or in addition to Mobile Food Vendors.

A potential proposal could involve the western storage shed being adapted to become a kiosk. This shed is a brick and tile structure with 32m² of internal space which is not required for storage space. Photos of the storage shed are at Attachment 4.

If the storage shed was to be used as a kiosk it would require upgrading to food service standards of either a warm kitchen or a full commercial kitchen. A full commercial kitchen can use fryers, stoves and hotplates to prepare any food. However, this comes with increased upfront costs, statutory approvals and higher requirements for exhausts and water waste. The warm and full commercial kitchen requirements and costs are outlined below:

Considerations	Warm Kitchen	Full Commercial Kitchen
Food examples	Coffee, baked goods, fresh food, sandwiches, other items brought in and reheated.	Any foods. Equipment: hot plate, gas stove, deep-fryer.
Exhaust	Nil.	Mechanical exhaust.
Water treatment	Nil.	Grease trap.
Additional utilities	Ceiling and lights, additional power points, floor sealed to food standard with vinyl or tile, walls to food standard with tile, roller-door hatch (serving window).	All requirements of a warm kitchen, plus water pump, grease trap, gas, increase power capacity to 20-32 amp.
Estimated upgrade cost	$30,000-$35,000	$150,000
Heritage Approvals	Nil (if works contained to within existing building).	Section 18 approval under Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

Administration recommends that a warm kitchen is appropriate for Hyde Park. A warm kitchen would also have reduced heritage implications – as Hyde Park is heritage listed. The storage shed is noted as intrusive in the Hyde Park Conservation Plan and provided the works are contained within the building footprint there are no heritage implications or approvals required.

Administration is proposing that the kiosk is commercially operated and would invite expressions of interest for the operation of the kiosk. A concept sketch of a kiosk at this location is at Attachment 5.

Consultation/Advertising:

Prior to inviting expressions of interest for the operation of a commercial kiosk at Hyde Park, Administration is proposing to consult with the community in respect to locating a kiosk at Hyde Park. The consultation will be in respect to locating a kiosk in addition or as an alternative to food trucks. The consultation would also provide the opportunity to seek the community’s feedback on healthy food options being provided at a kiosk and mobile food vendors, with consideration to the City’s Public Health Plan.

Consultation would occur in the following ways:

· brochures to residents within walking distance of Hyde Park;

· brochures to local businesses and the mobile food vendors currently operating in Hyde Park;

· a sign on the storage shed; and

· notice on the City’s website and in social media.

If the community is supportive of the kiosk proposal Administration would seek Council approval to invite expressions of interest for the lease of the kiosk. The City would be responsible for upgrading the storage shed so it is suitable for use as a warm kitchen. This would occur simultaneously with the upgrade to the public toilets and the lighting, which is scheduled to occur in 2021/22 in accordance with the City’s Long Term Financial Plan. The tenant would be responsible for the kiosk fit out.

Legal/Policy:

· Local Government Act 1995;

· City of Vincent Trading in Public Places Local Law 2008;

· City of Vincent Health Local Law 2004;

· Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

· Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 1997;

· Food Act 2008;

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code;

· Policy No 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor; and

· Policy No. 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for the City to adopt the amendments to the Mobile Food Vendor Policy as they are primarily administrative in nature and are designed to improve the effectiveness of its application, and to consult with the community on locating a kiosk at Hyde Park.

Strategic Implications

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Connected Community

Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

Thriving Places

We encourage innovation in business, social enterprise and imaginative uses of space, both public and private.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Waste Reduction

Financial/Budget Implications:

Consultation in respect to the kiosk is estimated at $2,000 (sign and brochures) and is included in the current operational budget.

Comments:

The amendments proposed by Council to Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors have been supported during community consultation. Adoption of these amendments is supported with the City working with vendors to ensure the intent and objectives of the Policy are met.

Further consultation is proposed to consider the potential for a kiosk in Hyde Park, which would gauge whether a commercial kiosk in addition or instead of the food trucks is supported.

Subject to the outcomes of this consultation and the subsequent decision around a locating a kiosk at Hyde Park, Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor may require further amendment.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5.6 Draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan

Attachments: 1. Community Consultation 15 June 2020 - 13 July 2020 ⇩

2. Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan - Final Outcome, Transition Plan and Landscape Plan - Final Version ⇩

3. Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan - Original as Advertised ⇩

4. Revised Landscape Plan ⇩

5. Amenity Element Examples ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the submissions received during the public comment period in relation to the draft Haynes Street Development Plan Attachment 1; and

2. ADOPTS the Haynes Street Development Pan (includes proposed final outcome, proposed transition plan and proposed landscaping concept plan), included as Attachment 2.

Purpose of Report:

To consider submissions received during the recent public comment period (Attachment 1) on the draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan and to seek Council adoption of the Plan (Attachment 2).

Background:

The City owns No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, and No. 25 (Lot 93) and No. 31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street, North Perth (Haynes Street Reserve) in freehold. Haynes Street Reserve is currently used for the purpose of a child care centre, a playgroup, a dental health clinic and a car park.

Kidz Galore has leased No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street from the City of Vincent since 2004. Kidz Galore contacted the City in 2016 requesting to purchase No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street to gain certainty on their use of the site into the future. At this time, it was discovered that No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street was subject to a Deed of Trust which provides that the land is to be used for public recreation. In addition, the City’s Public Open Space Strategy, adopted by Council in December 2018, identified a lack of local public open space in the North Perth area. Following discussions with Kidz Galore over the implications of the Deed of Trust and the Public Open Space Strategy, Kidz Galore submitted a further proposal to purchase a modified portion of the site in April 2019.

Council considered this offer and declined the proposal at the Council Meeting on 28 May 2019 (Item 11.7). The basis of this decision was that the land is encumbered by a Deed of Trust which provides that the land is to be used for the purpose of public recreation, and a commercial child care centre is inconsistent with this purpose. Council also resolved that it did not support varying the Deed of Trust to remove Lot 9 on the basis that the land is not considered to be in excess to the City’s public recreation requirements. It was also not considered “impossible, impractical or inexpedient” for the land to remain subject to the trust.

As part of this decision Council requested the Chief Executive Officer prepare a Development Plan identifying the type and size of public open space suitable for the site and the level of amenities required.

Consultation to prepare the initial plan and understand the views on the size of public open space and level of amenities required was conducted with the community in October and November 2019. The draft Haynes Street Development Plan was finalised in January 2020. At a Special Council Meeting on 28 January 2020 Council authorised the Mayor to submit the draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan (Attachment 3) to the Attorney General, and subject to the approval of the Attorney General, advertise the Plan for public comment for a period of 28 days.

The Attorney General approved the draft Haynes Street Development Plan on 5 March 2020.

The draft Development Plan will guide the future development of the City owned land at No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, No. 25 (Lot 93) and No. 31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street, North Perth (Haynes Street Reserve). The plan provides for future public open space in the North Perth area which was identified through the Public Open Space Strategy as an area which is currently lacking adequate provision of public open space. This approach also acknowledges the important role of the current services by transitioning them from the site gradually over a period of time.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Haynes Street Development Plan was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days, between 15 June and 13 July 2020. The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness during the public comment period:

· Mail out to owners and occupiers within 5 minute walking radius and additional phone call to adjacent resident at 12 Eton Street, North Perth;

· Email to all previous survey respondents and workshop attendees;

· Display on the City’s Imagine Vincent website, with respondents invited to indicate their level of support for the three sections of the Development Plan and to provide comments;

· Posts on the City’s social media pages; and

· Advertisement in the Perth Voice and Stirling Reporter local newspaper.

At the conclusion of the advertising period 36 submissions were received; 34 of these were received via the Imagine Vincent website and two submissions were received via email. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the following three sections of the Development Plan and were able to provide comments:

· Development Plan (Final outcome) – the ultimate outcome for the entire site;

· Transition Plan – how the site will be converted and the relevant timeframes; and

· Landscape Plan – the design of the public open space including amenities and features.

Comments in the submissions received have been responded to by Administration in Attachment 1, and a summary of the level of support for the three sections of the plan is detailed below.

Development Plan (Final Outcome)

Now that you have reviewed the draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan (final outcome), please indicate your level of support.	EHQ Survey	Email	Total	Percentage
I support the plan	27	0	27	75%
I object to the plan	4	1	5	14%
I neither support nor object	3	1	4	11%

· A few comments received indicated that a park was unnecessary and those respondents had concerns with the cost associated with implementation and maintenance.

· No changes have been made by Administration to the Development Plan (Final Outcome) Attachment 2.

Transition Plan

Now that you have reviewed the draft Haynes Street Reserve Transition Plan, please indicate your level of support.	EHQ Survey	Email	Total	Percentage
I support the plan	23	0	23	64%
I object to the plan	6	1	7	19%
I neither support nor object	5	1	6	17%

· No changes have been made to the Transition Plan by Administration Attachment 2, as the current timeline will reduce the impact on the community, with children already enrolled in Kidz Galore able to continue and still allow the childcare centre adequate time to relocate. Kidz Galore also would have the opportunity to vacate the building earlier once they do find a suitable site.

Landscape Plan

Now that you have reviewed the draft Haynes Street Reserve Landscape Plan, please indicate your level of support.	EHQ Survey	Email	Total	Percentage
I support the plan	26	0	26	72%
I object to the plan	5	1	6	17%
I neither support nor object	3	1	4	11%

· The original Landscape Plan that was advertised for public comment has been included as Attachment 3.

· A revised Landscape Plan was prepared to incorporate feedback received during the consultation process, which is reflected in Attachment 1. This included specific amenity requests such as drink fountains through to more general comments about the balance of uses within the park such as increasing turf areas and reducing play areas. Administration has reviewed all comments received and where possible, reflected changes into the revised Landscape Plan Attachment 4.

· The following changes were incorporated into the revised Landscape Plan by Administration:

o The No.31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street section of public open space will be constructed from July 2021 as part of Stage 1. No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street will be constructed from January 2026 as part of Stage 2. These stages have been clearly defined in the revised Landscape Plan;

o Inclusive play equipment options will be prioritised during play equipment selection;

o The basketball court received a few comments in opposition and some alternatives were considered for the area. As this section of the reserve will be installed from 2026, it was determined that further consultation with youth in the area could occur prior to construction of the park to ensure a suitable amenity is provided. The area has been noted as ‘to be confirmed’;

o The scooter course will consist of simple pathways, which can be maintained within the general maintenance budget;

o Increase turf area in Stage 1 and reduce the nature play, creating a better balance for a range of activities. The nature play area will be moved west, with half delivered in Stage 1 and the remaining delivered in Stage 2;

o Replace the section of play equipment in the southern boundary with a seating area, increased planting and a bird bath to create a quiet, relaxing space. A bird bath was prioritised over a water feature or pond. This will be cleaned when necessary during regular maintenance but will not require any specialised servicing, example in Attachment 5;

o Add lighting along paths;

o Add a drinking fountain and water tap at the BBQ area;

o An optional relocation of the footpath along Haynes Street, north of the mature trees with the installation of bollards;

o The scooter course will consist of a figure 8 pathway and can provide opportunities to integrate other play equipment such as a swing, example in Attachment 5; and

o The pathways around the bird bath can be reconsidered to reduce maintenance costs. However, as other paths are already being maintained onsite, these paths would not create a significant additional ongoing cost and would be maintained within the general maintenance budget.

Current tenants transition update

Lot	Address	Lessee/Licensee	Current Expiry
9	15 Haynes Street, North Perth	Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (Child care)	31 December 2020
Comment
The draft Development Plan recommends an extension to Kidz Galore’s lease to remain on site until 31 December 2025. Council approved the lease extension, subject to providing public notice, at its 15 September 2020 Council Meeting. The City has received a Development Application from Kidz Galore for a new Child Care Centre located at No. 6 London Street North Perth. The application proposes to demolish the existing Midland Brickwork showroom and to build a new single-storey centre that fronts London Street and Haynes Street. The application is currently under assessment and will be advertised for public comment between 5 October 2020 and 18 October 2020.
Lot	Address	Lessee/Licensee	Current Expiry
9	15 Haynes Street, North Perth	North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)	30 June 2021
Comment
The North Perth Playgroup’s lease will not be extended beyond 30 June 2021. The building they currently operate out of will be demolished to construct Stage 1 of the Development Plan. Due to lack of members, the North Perth Playgroup are determining whether the group will continue. The City will assist the remaining members to relocate to another premises or to join with other playgroups within the City.
Lot	Address	Lessee/Licensee	Current Expiry
100	31 Sydney Street, North Perth	North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)	30 June 2021
Comment
As above.
Lot	Address	Lessee/Licensee	Current Expiry
100	31 Sydney Street, North Perth	Department of Health (Dental Health Services)	30 June 2021
Comment
The Dental Health Services’ lease will not be extended beyond 30 June 2021. The building they currently operate will be demolished to construct Stage 1 of the Development Plan. The City will assist the Dental Health Services, where possible, over the next 9 months to find a suitable relocation site.
Lot	Address	Lessee/Licensee	Current Expiry
93	25 Sydney Street, North Perth	Department of Health (Dental Health Services) (car park licence)	30 June 2021
Comment
The Dental Health Service’s licence of the car park bays expires 30 June 2021.
Lot	Address	Lessee/Licensee	Current Expiry
93	25 Sydney Street, North Perth	Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (car park licence)	30 June 2021
Comment
Kidz Galore has been granted a three year licence over the car park bays, expiring 31 December 2023.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

· Local Government Act 1995;

· Charitable Trusts Act 1962;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Public Open Space Strategy 2018.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is considered low risk for Council to endorse a Development Plan following public comment which the Attorney General approved, and majority of respondents supported.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Urban Greening and Biodiversity

Financial/Budget Implications:

The City has considered the below financial considerations in preparing the draft Development Plan:

Past and future revenue

· Past revenue to the value of $134,241.12 obtained from the use of No.15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, since the 2015/16 financial year, will be used to return No. 15 (lot 9) Haynes Street to public open space.

· Future revenue from No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street under the proposed Transition Plan will be used to return the land to public open space.

· Council approved a new lease, subject to providing public notice, at its 15 September 2020 meeting. The proposed lease fee is $35,000 indexed by 5% per annum, plus GST and outgoings. Based on this lease fee, the revenue over the 5 years of the new lease would be approximately $193,000.

· Council also approved a licence of the car parking bays for a 3 year term. The licence fee is $2,600 indexed by 5% per annum. The revenue from the licence over the 3 years would be $8,200.

· The potential sale of No. 25 (Lot 93) Sydney Street, could fund the construction of the park. The 561 square metres property was given a market value by Landgate of $785,000 on 9 April 2019. The sale would be subject to a future Council decision and would need to be sold in compliance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Implementation Costs

· The financial impacts have been considered in the formation of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan 2018/19 – 2027/28.

· Demolition of buildings is approximately $50,000 per building, with exception of the demountable building on No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, which would be removed by Kidz Galore.

· The cost to establish public open space and required amenities is estimated to be from $250,000 to $320,000 including landscaping treatments to the verge. There will also be ongoing maintenance costs, varying depending on the individual amenities provided in the reserve.

Lifecycle Costs

· Based on the maintenance levels of service required for a similar area of passive open space, the annual maintenance costs, based on 2020 costing estimates, would include the following:

Type of Maintenance	Annual Cost
General maintenance (includes maintenance of pathways, water features etc)	$5,250
Lighting/electrical maintenance	$250
Fencing maintenance	$150
Cleaning (BBQ’s etc)	$500
Vandalism (Graffiti etc.)	$400
Turf maintenance (includes mowing, fertilising and any turf renovation requirements)	$4,500
Furniture/equipment maintenance (includes maintenance of furniture & any playground items)	$2,500
Trees/shrubs/garden maintenance (includes maintenance of large Camphor Laurel verge trees)	$6,500
Reticulation maintenance	$2,250
Weed control	$500
Refuse collection (includes rubbish picking, emptying of rubbish bins & waste collection)	$7,500
Refuse site tipping costs	$750
Total	$31,050

· An additional $9,000 would be required every 4 years for regular planned bore and pump maintenance for the existing groundwater bore/pump onsite.

· Based on a useful life of 50 years and an estimated cost of $320,000, an annual depreciation amount would be approximately $6,400.

Optional amendments to Landscape Plan

· The cost to convert car parking on Eton Street to park space is estimated at $30,000.

· Installation of a new path north of the mature trees on Haynes Street and removal of existing footpath to integrate mature trees into the park area is estimated to cost $20,000.

Comments:

The Haynes Street Development Plan provides for future public open space in the North Perth area, while acknowledging the important role of the current services by transitioning them from the site over a period of time. Based on the feedback received and high level of support, it is recommended that Council adopt the Haynes Street Development Plan including the original Development Plan (final outcome), Transition Plan and revised Landscape Plan.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

5.7 Accessible City Strategy

Attachments: 1. Draft Accessible City Strategy ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 at Attachment 1 for advertising for a period of 42 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

2. NOTES:

2.1 a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council detailing any submissions received during the public comments period;

2.2 the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication;

2.3 the positive summary 12 month trial evaluation results in speed reduction and crash benefits from the City of Vincent 40km/h speed zone trial in North Perth; and

2.4 the full 12 month trial evaluation report on the City of Vincent 40km/h trial undertaken in conjunction with the Road Safety Commission will be released publicly during Road Safety Week in November which will coincide with public consultation on the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030; and

3. ENDORSES a target in the draft Accessible City Strategy to implement a 40km/h traffic speed zone in all residential areas of the City of Vincent by 2023.

Purpose of Report:

To provide an overview of the development of the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 and to present this Strategy for public comment.

Background:

Transport systems are crucial in creating connection and supporting opportunities for people to access all aspects of daily life, including work, education, shopping, leisure, healthcare and other services.

The Accessible City Priority of the City’s Strategic Community Plan (SCP) identifies the need to create a future plan for the transport network which has an integrated approach in order to guide the City’s future transport infrastructure and advocacy. Council appointed Cardno at its meeting on 16 October 2018 to commence the Accessible City Strategy (ACS).

The City has not previously had an overarching strategic document to holistically guide changes to the transport network. The draft ACS presents an opportunity to integrate planning and transport to support economic, environmental and social activities, in a safe, easy, connected, environmentally friendly and enjoyable City.

In the current context, private vehicles frequently offer the most convenient and attractive way to get around. This is typically due to historic patterns of car-centric considerations and design. As the growing environmental costs of transport are recognised, active and sustainable transport options are becoming increasingly important.

Desktop research and SWOT analysis of Vincent’s transport network.

The City began the process of developing the ACS by undertaking a series of investigations to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) associated with the existing transport and land use network. This investigation included:

· Car parking occupancy and utilisation surveys;

· Bicycle counts;

· Land use surveys;

· Intersection turning movement;

· Travel time surveys;

· Public Transport Authority smart rider data;

· Off-street and on-street pedestrian and cycling provision;

· 2016 Census data for journey to work mode share, household size, vehicle occupancy etc.;

· Household travel survey for mode share by trip purpose; and

· Modelling the existing traffic network to determine available strategic network capacity along major corridors and key intersections, to determine traffic and growth capability.

The outcomes of the SWOT analysis were used to start discussions with the community and stakeholders inclusive of the City’s advisory group.

Consultation

Initial community consultation and stakeholder engagement was undertaken as follows:

· Community consultation was undertaken in person and via online surveys. The in-person consultation occurred on 30 March 2019. Attendees had the opportunity to provide comment on their transport concerns and experiences within the City as part of a free form workshop and discussion. Approximately 40 people attended the event. An online survey was made available to the community from 18 March 2019 to 13 April 2019. Respondents were provided the opportunity to make mode specific and general comments in relation to transport within the City, 60 responses were received;

· Detailed input was sought from a range of government and community stakeholder groups including; adjoining local governments, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH), the Department of Transport (DoT), Public Transport Authority (PTA), and Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA);

· The draft ACS was presented to the City’s Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group (STAG). Discussion was centred on the proposed actions and whether these are sufficient in achieving the aim and objectives of the draft ACS. Overall support of the draft ACS was received but questions were raised around the reasoning behind the actions and what these may look like once delivered, and how they could be further improved. Minor modifications have been made to the draft ACS based on the input received; and

· Detailed Council feedback was provided on the draft as a whole, in relation to consultation of the document, and what can be achieved by engaging with community and various stakeholders on the draft ACS.

The draft ACS has been refined based on the feedback provided, and an updated version is included as Attachment 1 for consideration.

Details:

The draft ACS supports the provision of a people-focused transport network which emphasises the role of active transport options. The draft ACS explores the current provision for transport and compares this infrastructure to the current and future needs of the community, across all transport modes, to support the long-term success and viability of Vincent.

Structure of the Draft ACS

The draft ACS is structured around three key focus areas:

1. Where are we now? - Sets out the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of Vincent’s current transport network and the results of stakeholder engagement surrounding this.

2. Where do we want to be? - Determines the vision and associated objectives and plans that will respond to the data and consultation collected in the ‘where are we now?’ focus area. This will enhance and improve Vincent’s transport network. The supporting tools which will be used to achieve this are also outlined.

3. How do we get there? - Outlines the actions which contribute to achieving the vision, objectives, and plans of the Accessible City Strategy.

A summary of each key focus area is as follows:

Where are we now?

Some of the key findings of consultation and stakeholder engagement were:

· A preference for overall reduction in congestion on the road network and shortcuts on residential streets associated with that congestion;

· The need to recognise Vincent as being primarily a place for people rather than the movement and storage of vehicles;

· Dissatisfaction with connectivity in Vincent, particularly east-west and circular public transport, as well as cycle route connectivity;

· Appreciation of the Greening Program and support for further commitment to expanding this;

· Concern for pedestrian and cycling safety, specifically across major streets, at roundabouts, and when using cycle lanes; and

· A strong desire for Vincent to be a leader in innovation.

The SWOT analysis, community consultation and stakeholder engagement helped to establish ‘where do we want to be?’ Through this we are able to define realistic, clear and measurable goals for an integrated transport system throughout Vincent, providing a list of actions that directly respond to the opportunities and threats over the next five to ten years. This consultation reaffirmed the community engagement undertaken as part of the development of the SCP.

Further to this, the City examined how the ACS would respond to the City’s existing strategies and policies.

Where do we want to be?

In support of changing the way we travel two supporting tools have been introduced. These are the transport user hierarchy, and link and place framework.

The transport user hierarchy is intended to summarise the needs of people travelling within the City in order of priority to guide improvements to the transport network.

The proposed transport user hierarchy is as follows:

· People who are walking;

· People who are cycling;

· People who are catching public transport; and

· People who choose to drive.

The link and place framework compliments the user hierarchy as a way of connecting users to places. The link and place framework represent the current and expected use of the City’s network categorising all streets in the network according to their specific combined place and link (movement) function, as detailed below:

· Places are locations with individual and specific combinations of land use and design elements and the interactions between elements. This includes the mix and type of retail, commercial, residential, food and beverage and entertainment options in the area, how people move through and to the space, how people spend time in the space, kerbside environments, building architecture and urban design elements. The City identifies a number of specific place types within the existing planning framework.

· Link refers to the passage of people along streets and roads. The level of movement is understood in terms of number of people, including pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and those in cars, rather than just the number of vehicles per day. Using the link and place framework, movement is understood in terms of people carrying capacity, rather than simply private vehicle movement.

The draft ACS identifies the Vision of:

A connected City that puts people first, where getting around is safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and enjoyable.

This is supported by the four key objectives and associated plans to:

1. Create a safe transport environment;

· Create active, sustainable transport networks that are safe and legible; and

· Ensure pedestrian and cycling routes (including schools) are of a high quality and safe for all users.

2. Ensure easy accessibility into and around Vincent;

· Advocate for connected and reliable transit;

· Reallocate road and verge space, including on street parking, throughout the City to prioritise vulnerable users according to the user hierarchy; and

· Be a leader in adaptability and technology.

3. Prioritise environmentally friendly transport modes and initiatives;

· Reduce carbon emissions caused by the transport network;

· Prioritise and encourage the use of active and sustainable transport modes;

· Manage car parking (including supply and pricing) to improve efficiency and support mode shift;

· Use residential density to support transit; and

· Obtain relevant data to inform decisions and monitor progress.

4. Have an enjoyable City to get around;

· Increase pedestrian amenity on residential streets; and

· Increase pedestrian amenity in town centres.

To measure whether the City has achieved the vision and objectives, mode share targets have been created. Mode share describes the proportion of people using each of the various types of transportation modes. Mode shift refers to changing mode share over time. Extensive growth in development and population across Vincent and throughout the entire region will generate additional transport demand that must be assigned to a movement network already approaching capacity. The road network within Vincent has a limited capacity, and regional and local development will place further pressure on the existing on the existing transport network. Mode shift from private vehicles to more sustainable and active modes of transport is necessary to more efficiently use the existing road capacity.

How do we get there?

The draft ACS outlines the actions that have been developed to ensure that the vision, objectives and plans are being met. These actions highlight the partners that the City will work with and the timeframes to progress these actions. A measurement has been provided for each of the actions and is a way of measuring the individual items implementation, its impact and level of success.

40km/h trial background and proposed new target

In April 2019, the City of Vincent, Road Safety Commission, WA Police, and Main Roads WA commenced a trial of a 40 kilometres per hour (km/h) local speed limit area in the southern section of the City of Vincent. Various quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the City of Vincent before and during the trial to support a formal evaluation.

GHD were engaged by the Road Safety Commission to provide advice and monitoring of the data collection and research design, to undertake data analysis, and to evaluate the outcomes of the trial.

The summary finding by GHD is that the 40 km/h trial within the City of Vincent has resulted in some speed reduction and crash benefits. This result is in line with what would be expected based on previous research in this field. The evidence also suggests that local street amenity has somewhat improved. The increase in the total number of pedestrian and cyclists observed triangulates with the slight improvement in perceived street safety and amenity reported by respondents.

It is not possible to completely exclude the impacts of COVID-19 on these results. However, the triangulation of multiple sources of data (collected mostly before the pandemic) generally supports these findings.

Complementary street design, road user awareness, and enforcement measures to reinforce the 40 km/h speed limit may result in the realisation of a greater level of total benefits. If left in place, it is possible that vehicle speeds within the trial area would continue to mediate below the new limit – particularly if supporting measures are introduced. Future evaluation would be useful in assessing the longer-term effects and potential effectiveness of supporting measures.

The full 12^th month trial evaluation report by GHD is expected to be released publicly during Road Safety Week in November which will coincide with the public consultation on the draft Accessible City Strategy.

This will enable full public consultation and engagement with the community on the proposed target to implement a 40km/h zone in all residential areas of the City of Vincent by 2023.

Consultation/Advertising:

As per Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, it is proposed to seek community feedback and input on the draft ACS through a 42-day public comment period. This will include:

1. Notices on the City’s webpage, social media and e-newsletter;

2. Dedicated project page on the City’s Imagine Vincent community engagement portal providing an opportunity to comment on the document as a whole, as well as a survey on the key areas of the draft ACS (the transport user hierarchy, the link and place framework, the aim, the objectives, plans and associated actions, and targets) and a map for people to pin personal experiences to understand place specific issues and feedback;

3. Notices at the City’s Library and Local History Centre and community buildings;

4. Targeted engagement with key stakeholders; and

5. An Open Day workshop inviting people to comment in person on the draft ACS.

The intent of the consultation beyond seeking feedback on the draft ACS in its entirety is to achieve the following:

1. Specifically explore those actions which have been identified as having the potential to create a more significant amount of change than others and may require further consideration through community consultation e.g. compact roundabouts and parking permits;

2. Understand how broader actions directly affect the community so that their implementation can be targeted and effective; and

3. Gain further knowledge of the experiences people have with Vincent’s transport network.

To ensure that a broad cross section of respondents is captured, in addition to the consultation methods stated above, flyers promoting the consultation exercise will be distributed at a number of locations across the City including but not limited to train stations, town centres, primary schools and high schools, child care centres, and aged care facilities. The data that has been collated to date will be presented both through the draft ACS and highlighted in community consultation. Nationwide consultation will also be undertaken to receive feedback on the implementation of some of the actions which are firsts for Western Australia. This would further inform the success of actions and the change they have enabled in order to determine whether they are appropriate to be implemented in Vincent.

Legal/Policy:

Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation sets outs the requirements for formal advertising of the document.

Further to this, the draft ACS is intended to respond to the City’s existing strategies and policies. From a strategic perspective, The ACS aligns with, clarifies and supports the following already established positions in Imagine Vincent:

· Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028;

· Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024;

· Greening Plan 2018-2023; and

· Local Planning Strategy 2014.

From a policy/action plan perspective, the ACS is intended to guide the review of the Bicycle Network Plan (2013) and the Precinct Parking Management Plans (2009) and replace the Car Parking Strategy (2008).

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to adopt the draft Accessible City Strategy for the purpose of advertising.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Accessible City

Our pedestrian and cyclist networks are well designed, connected, accessible and encourage increased use.

We have better integrated all modes of transport and increased services through the City.

We have embraced emerging transport technologies.

Connected Community

We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Sustainable Transport

Financial/Budget Implications:

The total cost of the standalone project items included in the Strategy’s Implementation Plan is $3,985,000, of this $230,000 is included in the City’s Annual Budget or LTFP. Ongoing projects have a total cost of $3,440,000 per annum for the life of the strategy, of this $280,000 is included in the City’s Annual Budget or LTFP.

Where appropriate there is opportunity for projects to gain external funding or be funded through the City’s Cash in Lieu Reserve.

Each initiative that is not currently budgeted will require its own business case or project plan prior to commencement. At this point the financial viability of each project will be further investigated.

Comments:

The City is committed to improving Vincent’s transport network to focus on Vincent being a connected City that puts people first, where getting around is safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and enjoyable.

The draft ACS is intended to guide the integration of the transport network over the next ten years with a major review of progress being undertaken in 2025.

Focus will be on creating a safe transport environment, ensuring easy accessibility into and around Vincent, prioritising environmentally friendly transport modes and initiatives, and having an enjoyable City to get around.

The intent is to enable a more strategic approach to the changes and growth of the transport network as an overarching vision and guide for the City’s transport related policies and works. The draft ACS is not likely to remain static.

As it is reviewed, new information will be included that may modify previously accepted positions. As we continue to deliver and refine actions, we will make sure to keep an open and transparent dialogue with our community.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

7 Community & Business Services

7.1 Beatty Park Leisure Centre Renewals Business Case

Attachments: 1. Business Case and Project Plan - Beatty Park Indoor Pool and Change Room Redevelopment 2020 ⇩

2. Beatty Park Upgrade Business Case - Images of Key Areas ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES the Business case for the Beatty Park Leisure Centre Upgrade as listed in the CBP 2020/21 – 2023/24 as item 23;

2. NOTES Tenders for the Pool tiling and water treatment will be advertised in October 2020; and

3. NOTES Council will be provided with the opportunity to review and comment on final designs for the change room upgrades prior to the change room upgrades going to tender.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the business plan for the Beatty Park Leisure Centre Indoor pool renewals project as included in the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24 (CBP) as Item 23: Beatty Park Leisure Centre Upgrade.

Background:

Beatty Park Leisure Centre (BPLC) services approximately 900,000 patrons annually, with numbers increasing over the last three years.

The swim school is a popular activity at BPLC. 70% of the 2,300 adults and children enrolled in the swim school originate from neighbouring Councils, demonstrating that BPLC is a regional facility. The swim school utilises the indoor heated shared passive and 25m pool (SPP).

BPLC underwent a redevelopment in 1994, at which time the SPP was built in place of the original 1962 outdoor practice pool. Stages 3 and 4 of the project, then managed by City of Perth, did not occur. As a result, the toilets on the northern elevation remain as constructed in 1962. The toilets do not provide changing areas and are the only facilities in that area for patrons using the SPP. The plant room also remains as designed in 1962.

In 2011, BPLC underwent a major upgrade to the aquatic centre, new lanes were added to the 50m pool with accessible ramp, and a new 12m pool was built. All other pools were stripped and retiled. In addition, the gym was built and a new entrance and reception area was added. Stages 3 and 4 of the project were unable to be funded at the time. The filtration plant servicing the SPP was not upgraded as planned (stage 3) and renovations to the grandstand and northern toilets did not proceed (stage 4). The latter sets of toilets remain in original 1962 condition.

Details:

Scope of this Business Case

Council adopted the 20/21 budget funding $2.93 million for the following five projects:

1. SPP tiling,

2. SPP filtration,

3. Change room renewal to the northern elevation, and other SPP improvements,

4. Electrical renewal to the grandstand structure and associated tenancies and

5. Critical maintenance to the grandstand as identified in the 2019 Peter Baxendale structural assessment.

This business case covers projects 1 to 3.

This business plan excludes projects 4 and 5. $600,000 of the budgeted $2.93M funding has been set aside to deliver projects 4 and 5.

Project Descriptions

A business case for the three projects is at Attachment 1. The following provides a description of each project.

Included at Attachment 2 are images of the key project areas for ease of reference.

Project 1 – SPP Tiling

Tiling to walls and the floor of the SPP has begun to fail. Tiles are delaminating from the concrete shell, allowing water behind the adjacent tiles, causing further delamination. If not treated this failure will continue and will lead to catastrophic unplanned failure, closure of the pool with no notice, and the potential for injury to users. Temporary remediation measures have occurred on three occasions within the last 18 months. Complete removal and replacement of tiles is now required.

Project 2 – SPP Filtration Plan

The 30 year old SPP filtration plant is well past end of life, having lasted double the twelve to fifteen years recommended by the manufacturer and service contractors. The filtration plant, when installed, provided the water turnover rates acceptable at the time (1994) however these rates are well below current standards.

When tiles are removed from the pool shell (Project 1) we have access to the filtration pipework. A further invasive inspection will be undertaken at this time, and there is a likelihood that reticulation filtration pipework will require replacement prior to retiling. Thus, it is critical the two projects (filtration and tiling) are managed concurrently.

The LTFP proposes funding for basic annual renewal of non-fixed plant on failure such as pumps and valves. It is expected that on completion of the SPP plant renewal this year, major capital investment within the plant room will not be required again for another seven to ten years.

Project 3 – Change Room Renewal and other SPP improvements – Northern Elevation

3a Change Room Renewal

The SPP zone enjoys high use by families, children, elderly and persons with disability. It is the destination facility for swim school and rehabilitation providers.

The toilets located on the northern elevation provide basic sanitary facilities (10 toilets, 1 urinal and 4 hand basins), however the fit out remains as built in 1962. Access is down a flight of stairs and it does not provide acceptable functionality for persons with mobility issues.

There are no shower facilities in this zone, which then places undue strain on the eastern toilets/showers and family change rooms.

An initial concept design has been completed and detailed design work is now underway for all components of Project 3 taking into consideration DAIP Outcome 2: People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to access the buildings and other facilities of a public authority.

Improvements include providing additional “on deck” showers for patrons, creation of new change rooms and toilets on the same level as the pool deck and accessible facilities for persons with disability and mobility issues.

The 26 year old concrete slides may need to be removed to fit the new facilities and the new design will incorporate a replacement slide, as this is a much used element.

3b Improvement to storage for swim school

Works are planned to improve swim school storage, improving security of equipment, and improved safety for swim school staff. This will involve creating a lockable space for staff access, improved lighting and possibly a toilet.

3c Improvement to sauna

The sauna and spa areas are high demand and subject to overcrowding during peak periods. Known as the “wellness area”, the sauna/spa facility generates approximately $300,000 a year in revenue. However BPLC has had cancellation or suspension of memberships due to overcrowding.

An expansion of the sauna in the wellness area is seen as an opportunity to cater for the current high demand on this area.

BPLC proposes to expand the sauna which will add approx. 12% or $36,000 per year in casual income and will add 3% or $78,000 per year increase in membership income.

It is proposed to complete this work while the SPP is being updated, to minimise disruption to customers.

Consultation/Advertising:

The main user of the SPP area is the Beatty Park Swim School which has been consulted extensively throughout the process. Changing facilities for patrons has been the number one concern for many years especially with the multi award winning Angelfish program attracting a wide range of people with accessibility issues. Currently they are required to share the one fully accessible change room and 3 smaller family/accessible change rooms all of which are not within the SPP area.

As part of the detailed design for the change rooms our Swim School parents/carers and accessible users groups will be consulted to ensure the final design caters for their clients. This will achieve DAIP Outcome 6: People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to participate in any public consultation by a public authority.

Legal/Policy:

Nil

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to approve the business case. Approving the business case mitigates asset maintenance risks, improves the safety of staff and customers.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Enhanced Environment (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

Connected Community (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

Thriving Places (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Innovative and Accountable (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Sustainable Energy Use

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for these projects is included in the annual budget 2020/21, CBP and LTFP.

The project is planned for completion during the summer months, as the Swim School is not in operation for 7 weeks, and the outdoor pools will be available for both Vacation Swimming and casual swimming.

Closing the facility in summer (Dec to April) will reduce revenue by $755K, while closing the facility in Winter (May to Sep) will reduce revenue by $1.1M.

This is detailed in the business case.

Comments:

BPLC is an $80 million regional heritage asset managed by the City of Vincent and renewal investment in the past four years has ensured the centre continues to provide a level of service expected by patrons in a highly competitive market.

The projects noted and supported by the business case attached are crucial in providing a safe, compliant and fit for purpose facility into the future. Projects 1 and 2 are critical and without action in the short term will lead to a forced unplanned shutdown of the centre and the associated income and reputational imposts to the City.

Project 3 will bring the provision of changing rooms and the level of accessibility up to current standards while also providing additional income for the facility.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

7.2 Final endorsement of Youth Action Plan

Attachments: 1. Youth Action Plan community consultation comments ⇩

2. Youth Action Plan Workshop recomendations ⇩

3. Youth Action Plan 2020 - 2022 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the responses received during the advertising of the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 during the public comment period at Attachment 1 and recommendations from the Youth Action Plan Workshop held on 9 September 2020 at Attachment 2;

2. ADOPTS the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 at Attachment 3; and

3. NOTES that final editorial, design and formatting of the document will be determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication.

Purpose of Report:

To seek Council adoption of the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 incorporating the recommendations made by the Youth Action Plan Working Group.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 June 2019, Council endorsed a Councillor Budget Submission for the development of the City’s first Youth Action Plan (YAP). The development of the YAP was included as Objective 3.10 within the City of Vincent’s Corporate Business Plan 2019-2020.

Following Council endorsement, an extensive consultation campaign commenced from October 2019 to April 2020. To ensure the consultation was from a diverse a range of our youth, as well as from local service providers and the broader community, the consultation was carefully designed to ensure a range of qualitative and quantitative information was collected. The information collected during this first consultation phase informed the development of the YAP with a range of formal and informal engagement tools utilised to reach as many networks as possible.

Administration spoke with over 400 youth, parents and service providers from across Vincent about the issues that matter the most to them. Through these conversations, forums, surveys and focus groups, the community have helped the City develop a Youth Action Plan that reflects the diversity of our young people along with their thoughts on youth priorities, issues and opportunities.

A range of formal and informal engagement tools were used so as to reach as many networks as possible with small incentives provided to complete online surveys. Administration also conducted general ‘street based’ conversations that allowed for the gathering of qualitative incidental information. Officers presented at community events, pop-up stalls/stations and ad hoc activities.

Following the completion of the first community consultation, Officers drafted a Youth Action Plan that centred around four (4) key themes being:

· Support and Opportunity;

· Community and Participation;

· Wellbeing and Resilience; and

· Organisational Capacity.

Subsequently, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21 July 2020, Council resolved to:

“1. RECEIVES the Draft Youth Action Plan 2020-2022, at Attachment 1;

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the Draft Youth Action Plan 2020-2022 for public comment for a period of 21 days, inviting written submissions in accordance with Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

3. NOTES that a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting in September 2020 detailing any submissions received during the public comment period; and

4. NOTES that the Draft Youth Action Plan 2020-2022 will be modified to improve formatting, styling and graphic design, as determined by the Chief Executive Officer, prior to publication.”

DETAILS:

Administration commenced the final consultation for the draft Youth Action Plan on 17 August 2020. An extensive consultation campaign was conducted through:

· General community feedback sought through:

o The City’s consultation portal Imagine Vincent

o Notices on the City’s website, social media channels, Library and Local History Centre and Beatty Park; and

o Attendance at pop up events at Leederville Skatepark and Britannia Reserve pump track.

· Targeted engagement with key stakeholders through:

o direct contact with youth who provided feedback during the consultation phase;

o direct conversation with local youth service providers and schools;

o direct conversations and contact with CYPAG members and the Vincent Youth Network;

o direct communication and distribution to all regular community facility hirers whose programs encompass children and young people; and

o Direct communication and distribution to all junior sporting clubs.

In addition to the above, a Youth Action Plan 2020 -2022 workshop was held on 9 September 2020, with members of the Children and Young People Advisory Group, along with representatives from the Vincent Youth Network (VYN) in attendance, to review the draft Youth Action Plan prior to final submission to Council. The working group proposed some amendments that will be incorporated into the draft Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 following endorsement by Council as detailed in Attachment 2.

The Draft YAP 2020-2022 has been developed to be ambitious but achievable and is primarily designed to lay the foundations for establishing and creating opportunities to strengthen our connections with, and understanding of, our young people. More specifically, it:

· demonstrates the City’s commitment to recognising and supporting our youth community;

· provides a framework for how the City will work with young people, service providers and the community to support our youth over the life of the Plan;

· provides guiding principles for ensuring the City’s services and programs consider the impact on youth and allow for synergies and integration with existing plans and strategies; and

· provides targeted objectives for how the City can support, connect and empower its young people.

To ensure the YAP stays a meaningful and relevant resource for the City and the public, it incorporates a strategic long‑term (five year) vision and mid‑term (two year) deliverables which will be reviewed and refined through an evaluation process.

The deliverables have been developed under the umbrella of four focus areas, or themes, identified through stakeholder feedback obtained during the initial community consultation period. An operational‑level implementation plan is being developed by Administration to support the delivery of the deliverables. It is also anticipated that the Children & Young Peoples’ Advisory Group (CYPAG) and the Vincent Youth Network will assist in the implementation of the YAP through identifying, advocating and exploring ways of addressing the issues and needs of young people in the City of Vincent.

The Plan also recognises the impact of COVID‑19 and commits that at an operational level, deliverables will involve response and recovery initiatives specifically to deal with the current and future uncertainty caused by the pandemic. A specific deliverable has been included to address mental health.

Public advertising of the YAP 2020 – 2022 has now been undertaken in accordance with Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation as contained within Attachment 1 with eighteen formal responses being received.

Public notice was provided from 17 August 2020 to 7 September 2020 for the required 21 days, in the following ways:

· on the City’s website – 17 August 2020;

· on the notice board at the City’s Administration and Library and Local History Centre – 17 August 2020;

· Perth Voice – 20 August 2020; and

· Social media and Instagram posts – 17 and 28 August and 1 September 2020.

Consultation/Advertising:

No further consultation is required.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There is low risk to Council adopting the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Connected Community

We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City.

Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Specific actions and deliverables within the Youth Action Plan 2020-2022 will be delivered through allocations in the 2020/2021 operating budget and subsequent budgets subject to Council consideration. Administration will also seek grant funding through the Federal and State Governments as opportunities arise.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

7.4 Investment Report as at 31 August 2020

Attachments: 1. Investment Statistics as at 31 August 2020 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Statistics for the month ended 31 August 2020 as detailed in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s Investments as at 31 August 2020 and the interest amounts earned year to date.

Background:

The City’s surplus funds are invested in bank term deposits for various terms to facilitate maximum investment returns in accordance to the City’s Investment Policy (No. 1.2.4).

Details of the investments are included in Attachment 1 and outline the following information:

· Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

· Investment portfolio data;

· Investment interest earnings; and

· Current investment holdings.

Details:

The City’s investment portfolio is diversified across several accredited financial institutions.

As at 31 August 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $26,788,392. The total funds include an amount of $10,549,531 that relates to monies held in a non-interest bearing account (CBA ‘everyday’ account).

The balance of funds held in term deposit investments for the period ending 31 August 2020 is $16,238,861 compared to $49,641,317 to the period ending 31 August 2019.

Investment activity has decreased significantly compared to last year due to the following reasons: -

1. The current low interest rates available in the market for short to medium term maturity periods. Instead of investing funds Administration have transferred Municipal funds (only) to an Online Saver account that offers similar competitive interest rate of 0.65% for a six month period.

2. The option of transferring to the Saver accounts offers the City flexibility as the monies can be withdrawn at any time without incurring any additional fees.

3. All Reserve and Leederville Trust monies are being invested as normal, however, due to the lower interest rates available, interest yield on these investments have decreased significantly.

It is important to highlight that with the current economic downturn it is anticipated that interest rates will either remain the same or decrease even further to help stimulate the economy.

As a result, Administration will ensure that funds held in the non-interest bearing account will be reviewed and transferred to the Saver account on a daily basis to take advantage of the favourable interest rate in the saver account.

The following table shows funds under management for the previous and current year: -

Month	2019/20		2020/21
Ended	Total funds held	Total term deposits	Total funds held	Total term deposits
July	$32,209,493	$32,209,493	$21,740,955	$17,906,824
August	$49,641,327	$49,641,327	$26,788,392	$16,238,861
September	$44,876,698	$44,876,698
October	$46,846,286	$46,846,286
November	$46,118,236	$46,118,236
December	$38,557,295	$38,557,295
January	$37,915,806	$37,915,806
February	$35,377,640	$35,377,640
March	$33,969,162	$33,969,162
April	$30,832,893	$30,832,893
May	$28,935,398	$28,935,398
June	$25,079,463	$17,565,310

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 31 August 2020 is:

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment	Budget Adopted	Budget YTD	Actual YTD	% of FY Budget
Municipal	$230,000	$38,334	$11,195	29.20%
Reserve	$180,205	$30,034	$20,766	69.14%
Subtotal	$410,205	$68,368	$31,961	46.75%
Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$10,645	0.00%
Total	$410,205	$68,368	$42,606	62.32%

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust were not included in the 2020/21 Budget as actual interest earned is restricted.

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 0.62% for current investments including the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for August 2020 is 0.10%.

Sustainable Investments

The City’s Investment Policy states that preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”. Administration currently uses Marketforces.org.au to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investments in fossil fuel related entities.

As at 31 August 2020, $2,591,726 (16%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

The following guidelines have been established to manage the City’s investments, including maximum investment ratios:

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Direct Investments Maximum % with any one institution		Managed Funds Maximum % with any one institution		Maximum % of Total Portfolio
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	12.5%	30%	Nil	90%	56.0%
A-1	25%	16.0%	30%	Nil	80%	16.0%
A-2	20%	15.7%	n/a	Nil	60%	28.0%

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

The power to invest is governed by the Local Government Act 1995.

“6.14. Power to invest

(1) Money held in the municipal fund or the trust fund of a local government that is not, for the time being, required by the local government for any other purpose may be invested as trust funds under the Trustees Act 1962 Part III.

(2A) A local government is to comply with the regulations when investing money referred to in subsection (1).

(2) Regulations in relation to investments by local governments may —

(a) make provision in respect of the investment of money referred to in subsection (1); and

[(b) deleted]

(c) prescribe circumstances in which a local government is required to invest money held by it; and

(d) provide for the application of investment earnings; and

(e) generally provide for the management of those investments.

Further controls are established through the following provisions in the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

19. Investments, control procedures for

(1) A local government is to establish and document internal control procedures to be followed by employees to ensure control over investments.

(2) The control procedures are to enable the identification of —

(a) the nature and location of all investments; and

(b) the transactions related to each investment.

19C. Investment of money, restrictions on (Act s. 6.14(2)(a))

(1) In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

(a) an authorised deposit‑taking institution as defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Commonwealth) section 5; or

(b) the Western Australian Treasury Corporation established by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986;

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

(2) When investing money under section 6.14(1), a local government may not do any of the following —

(a) deposit with an institution except an authorised institution;

(b) deposit for a fixed term of more than 3 years;

(c) invest in bonds that are not guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, or a State or Territory government;

(d) invest in bonds with a term to maturity of more than 3 years;

(e) invest in a foreign currency.”

Council has delegated the authority to invest surplus funds to the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate to facilitate prudent and responsible investment.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Administration has developed effective controls to ensure funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy. This report enhances transparency and accountability for the City’s investments.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The financial implications of this report are as noted in the details section of the report. Administration is satisfied that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

7.6 Financial Statements as at 31 August 2020

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 31 August 2020 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 31 August 2020 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 August 2020.

Background:

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity including the sources and applications of funds, as compared to the budget.

The 2019/2020 financials are in the process of being finalised and audited, therefore the balances provided in this report are provisional and subject to change.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 31 August 2020:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type Report	4
3.	Net Current Funding Position	5
4.	Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas	6-46
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding graph and Capital Works Schedule	47-52
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	53
7.	Rating Information and Graph	54-55
8.	Debtors Report	56
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	57

Comments on the Statement of Financial Activity (as at Attachment 1)

Operating revenue is reported separately by ‘Program’ and ‘Nature or Type’ respectively. The significant difference between the two reports is that operating revenue by ‘Program’ includes ‘Profit on sale of assets’ and the report for ‘Nature or Type’ includes ‘Rates revenue’.

Revenue by Program is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by an amount by $865,338 (37%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $265,005 as a result of recognising income relating to rubbish services for exempt properties and properties requiring additions bins. The budget phasing variance will be adjusted at the October budget review (Community Amenities);

· A favourable variance of $350,215 due to an increase in revenue generated from Beatty Park (Recreation and Culture);

· A favourable variance of $467,867 due to an increase in revenue generated from parking activities (Transport); and

· An unfavourable variance of $289,321 due to a timing variance relating to rates instalment charge and the associated interest earnings. In addition, interest earnings from term deposits has reduced due to current economic climate (General Purpose funding).

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by $965,412 (2.6%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $963,145 for revenue generated from Fees and charges primarily from Beatty Park and parking facilities (Fees and charges).

Expenditure by Program reflects an under spend of $793,734 (11.8%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An under-spend of $450,032 mainly contributed by the timing variance relating to the annual renewal payment for parking permit licenses. This payment is scheduled for September 2020 (Transport);

· An under-spend of $117,900 mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to waste tipping costs (Community Amenities); and

· An under-spend of $108,299 contributed by a cumulative timing variance of works across multiple areas that are individually immaterial (Other Property and services).

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $780,193 (11.6%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· Employee costs reflects an over-spend of $564,360. This variance is materially contributed by the following areas: -

o Beatty Park - $223,000. Beatty Park staff being deployed back to work as a result of operations resuming at Beatty Park. This will be reviewed at the October Budget Review.

o Rangers shift allowances - $100,000. This amount was omitted from the original budget workings and will be adjusted at the October budget review.

· Other Expenditure reflects an under-spend of $257,245. This variance is materially contributed by the following areas: -

o Software maintenance costs - $130,000; and

o Lease incentive payments of $93,000 for the Department of Sports & Recreation building as per the lease agreement. This payment will be paid in September 2020.

· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $899,396. This variance is mainly contributed by the timing variance in the payment of the renewal of parking permit licenses - $415,000. This will be paid in September 2020.

The remaining under-spend relates to timing variance of works within multiple areas. These timing differences will be reviewed at the October budget review.

Surplus Position – 2020/21

The provisional surplus position brought forward to 2020/21 is $2,963,903 compared to the adopted budget amount of $1,615,763. The actual opening surplus figure will be adjusted once the end of year audit has been finalised.

Content of Statement of Financial Activity

An explanation of each report in the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1), along with some commentary, is below:

1. Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report (Note 1 Page 1)

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Program.

2. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type Report (Note 2 Page 4)

This statement of Comprehensive Income shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Nature or Type.

3. Net Current Funding Position (Note 3 Page 5)

‘Net current assets’ is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities; less committed assets and restricted assets.

4. Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 46)

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by service unit including variance commentary.

5. Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 47 - 52)

Below is a summary of the year to date expenditure of each asset category and the funding source associated to the delivery of capital works.

The full capital works program is listed in detail in Note 5 in Attachment 1.

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 53)

The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserves portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 31 August 2020 is $11,109,200.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 54 - 55)

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2019/20 were issued on 7 August 2020. The Local Government Act 1995 provides for ratepayers to pay rates by four instalments. The due dates for each instalment are:

	Due Date
First Instalment	18 September 2020
Second Instalment	13 November 2020
Third Instalment	8 January 2021
Fourth Instalment	12 March 2021

Rates debtors for 2020/21 was raised on 29 July 2020 after the adoption of the budget.

The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 31 August 2020 is $35,805,765 excluding deferred rates ($253,840) and including ESL debtors and pensioner rebates. The outstanding rates percentage for 2020/21 is 82% compared to 47% for similar period in 2019/20. The increased percentage is due to timing of the budget being adopted in July this year instead of the norm of June.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 56)

Total trade and other receivables as at 31 August 2020 is $2,323,537.

Below is a summary of the significant items that have been outstanding for over 90 days:

· $1,636,542 (89%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.

$971,183 of this amount has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion).

Furthermore, as some of the unpaid infringements are aged, a provisional amount of $186,666 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the current portion (within 12 months) and a provisional amount of $196,072 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the non-current portion (greater than 12 months). This treatment is in accordance to the new requirements of the changes in the Accounting standards (AASB 9). This provisional amount is subject to change once the 19/20 financial statements have been Audited and approved.

· $159,944 (9.5%) relates to cash-in-lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay their debt over a fixed term of five years.

On 8 April 2020, the Minister of Planning WA issued a provision that exempts proponents from making cash in lieu related payments for existing or new non-residential development to the City. This exemption is effective up to the earlier date of either: -

a) 90 days after the date upon which the State of Emergency Declaration ceases to have effect or is revoked; or

b) midnight, 1 May 2023.

· Tenancies are being dealt with in accordance to the direction approved by the COVID committee.

· Health licenses debtors are being followed up with final reminders. Thereafter, these debts will be sent to the debt collectors for further follow up.

9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 57)

As at 31 August 2020, the Centre’s operating surplus position is $26,142 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $67,287. This is primarily contributed by the increased activity relating to the swim school and fitness initiatives at the Centre.

10. Explanation of Material Variances

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $20,000 respectively. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the year to date budget and where that variance exceeds $20,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2020/21 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 31 August 2020 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to prepare an annual financial report for the preceding year and other financial reports as prescribed.

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires the local government to prepare a statement of financial activity each month, reporting on the source and application of funds as set out in the adopted annual budget.

A statement of financial activity and any accompanying documents are to be presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council within two months after the end of the month to which the statement relates.

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, specifies that a local government is not to incur expenditure from its Municipal Fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure is authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Provision of monthly financial reports to Council fulfils relevant statutory requirements and is consistent with good financial governance.

Strategic Implications:

Reporting on the City’s financial position is aligned with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

8.3 Sale of 150 (Lot 12) Charles Street, West Perth

Attachments: 1. Summary of offers received for 150 Charles Street, West Perth - Confidential

2. Valuation Report for 150 Charles Street, West Perth - February 2020 - Confidential

3. Survey of 150 Charles Street showing Planning Control Area ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. RECEIVES the offers submitted through the set date sale process for 150 Charles Street, West Perth, known as Lot 12 on Plan 1151 and comprising the whole of Certificate of Title Volume 1176 Folio 497 (150 Charles Street) as at Confidential Attachment 1;

2. NOTES that none of the offers meet the minimum price of $225,000 as set by the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee at its 26 May 2020 Meeting (Item 7.4);

3. DECLARES the market valuation of $225,000, dated 4 February 2020, as at Confidential Attachment 2, to be a true indication of the current value for 150 Charles Street;

4. APPROVES the transfer of 150 Charles Street for the sum of $208,000 including GST, subject to the Chief Executive Officer providing local public notice in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act);

5. AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the Offer and Acceptance Form in respect to the transfer in Recommendation 4;

6. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the transfer in accordance with section 3.58 of the Act, and DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the power to consider any submissions received and determine whether to proceed with the proposed transfer to the Chief Executive Officer; and

7. SUBJECT TO the Chief Executive Officer determining to proceed with the transfer as set out in Recommendation 6. AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer the affix the common seal and execute the Transfer of Land.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the sale of 150 (Lot 12) Charles Street, West Perth, known as Lot 12 on Plan 1151 and comprising the whole of Certificate of Title Volume 1176 Folio 497 (150 Charles Street), for a sum of $208,000 including GST.

Background:

At Ordinary Meeting of Council 7 April 2020 (Item 12.3), Council approved the sale of 150 Charles subject to the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee (COVID-19 Committee) determining the appropriate timing, minimum price, method of sale and compliance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA).

At the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee Meeting on 26 May 2020 (Item 7.4), the COVID-19 Committee resolved in part as follows:

‘4. APPROVES the advertising of 150 Charles Street, West Perth for sale by a suitable qualified real-estate agent, with public notice to be provided in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, SUBJECT TO:

4.1 Timing: Marketing commencing June 2020 and closing after a minimum of 21 days;

4.2 Minimum Price: $225,000; and

4.3 Method of Sale: Set date sale followed by a private treaty if no satisfactory offers received.

6. APPROVES the Chief Executive Officer providing public notice in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 of the best offer, subject to it meeting the relevant minimum price in recommendations 4. or 5. above.

7. NOTES that the offers and any submissions received will be presented to Council for consideration and approval.’

Administration engaged a local real-estate agent to manage the sale. The set date sale commenced on 10 August 2020 and closed on 31 August 2020.

Details:

The City received five offers as a result of the set date sale process. One offer was subsequently withdrawn. The remaining offers are set out in Confidential Attachment 1. The offers range from $176,000 to $210,000. The highest offer is subject to clarity on parking being provided and is subject to finance. The second highest offer, of $208,000, is a cash offer (Offer 2). The settlement term is 45 days from acceptance of the offer.

Administration recommends that Offer 2 is accepted as it is unconditional and would result in the settlement occurring by the end of 2020 (which allows time for the statutory public notice period).

Administration has included a special condition in the Offer and Acceptance Form which provides that the City’s acceptance of the offer is subject to the City complying with the public notice requirements under section 3.58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. If Council approves this sale, the Offer and Acceptance Form will be signed.

150 Charles is impacted by Planning Control Area No.125 (PCA) on the western boundary for the future widening of Charles Street. The extent of the PCA’s impact on 150 Charles is shaded light red in Attachment 3 (plan of survey and PCA). Any development on 150 Charles would be required to be located outside of the PCA area unless otherwise approved by Main Roads.

In accordance with Section 186 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 compensation may be payable in respect of land that is located within a Planning Control Area. Main Roads would be required to negotiate with the future landowner to acquire the portions of land currently located within the Planning Control Area, where the parties are unable to reach an agreement for compensation then the responsible authority (Main Roads) may use Section 187 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 for compulsory acquisition. A number of lots that have subdivided along Charles Street ceded the PCA area as a condition of subdivision free of cost to the Crown.

The City’s valuations and market appraisals take into account the impact of PCA 125 on the value of 150 Charles. The COVID-19 Committee set the minimum sale price of $225,000 in consideration of the valuation report provided in February 2020, as at Confidential Attachment 2.

Consultation/Advertising:

If the offer is accepted, public notice is required in accordance with section 3.58 of the Act. Public notice will be provided for a minimum of 14 days in the following ways:

· on the City’s website;

· in the local paper; and

· on the City’s notice boards at the Administration and Civic Centre and Library.

Legal/Policy:

Local Government Act 1995

In accordance with Section 3.58 of the Act a local government can dispose of land in the following ways:

· public auction;

· public tender; or

· directly to a third party conditional on a public notice period and consideration of any submissions received. Public notice must include the purchase price, name of the purchaser and valuation details.

Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides that a local government may delegate powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to sell 150 Charles Street as proposed.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with the sale are as follows:

Real estate agent marketing $2,837

Agent seller fee (2.25% of sale price $208,000) $4,680

Notices in Perth Voice and Eastern Reporter $608

Transfer preparation and registration costs $1,000

The proposed sale would result in extraordinary income of just over $200,000, which has not been included in the City’s current budget and Long Term Financial Plan. This additional revenue would be accounted for in the City’s first quarterly budget review in October 2020.

The $200,000 in revenue would be held in the POS Reserve. This Reserve will be created as part of the October budget review.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

8.4 Licence to locate a permanent alfresco structure in the Grosvenor Road road reserve adjacent to 639-643 (Lot 1) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley

Attachments: 1. Plan of Licence Area ⇩

2. Design Review Panel 29 July Minutes ⇩

3. Plans of proposed alfresco deck structure ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council

1. APPROVES the City granting a licence to Bonnie Brew Pty Ltd (ACN 642 782 081), tenant of Lot 1 on Deposited Plan 1237, Certificate of Title Volume 2111 Folio 336, known as 639-643 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (639-643 Beaufort Street), for part of the road reserve adjacent to 639-643 Beaufort Street and Grosvenor Road, as shown in Attachment 1, on the following key terms:

1.1 Term: 5 years with a 5 year option term;

1.2 Licence Area: 118m² (37.6m x 3.15m) of Grosvenor Road road reserve (verge area);

1.3 Licence fee: $3,500 per annum plus GST, indexed by CPI annually on 1 July;

1.4 Permitted use: alfresco structure with balustrade and decking for casual outdoor dining and liquor consumption, as shown in the plan at Attachment 3;

1.5 Non-Exclusive use: Applicant is granted non-exclusive use of the Licence Area;

1.6 Removal of furniture: all furniture used within the Licence Area must be temporary and removed by the Applicant at the close of each business day;

1.7 Cleaning: Applicant must, at its cost, keep the Licence Area clean and tidy at all times;

1.8 Insurance: Applicant must effect and maintain public liability insurance to a minimum value of $20,000,000 (per claim);

1.9 Indemnity: Applicant will indemnify the City and the Minister for Lands against loss or damage to property or persons occuring as a result of the Applicant’s fixtures, fittings and use of the Licence Area;

1.10 Maintenance: Applicant must, at its cost, keep the Licence Area in good repair including repairing damage to structures, fittings or fixtures on the Licence Area;

1.11 Outdoor Eating Area Permit: Applicant must (for the duration of the Licence) maintain a valid Outdoor Eating Permit for the Licence Area;

1.12 Assignment: Applicant must ensure the licence is assigned to the new business owner or registered proprietor on the transfer/sale of the business or 639-643 Beaufort Street;

1.13 Removal and make good: all the Applicant’s fixtures and fittings (including the structure and decking) must be removed and the Licence Area made good by Applicant (to the City’s satisfaction) on request of the City, Minister for Lands, a utility service provider or a public authority or on the termination or expiry of the Licence;

1.14 Compensation: no compensation will be payable to the Applicant if the City, Minister for Lands, a utility service provider or a public authority make a request in accordance with recommendation 1.13 above;

1.15 Caveat: the City will be permitted to register a caveat against the Certificate of Title to 639-643 Beaufort Street to secure the terms of the licence; and

1.16 Costs: all costs incurred by the City in preparing the licence, caveat and the subsequent registration and withdrawal of caveat costs are payable by the Applicant.

2. Subject to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the licence in recommendation 1. above.

Purpose of Report:

To consider granting a licence to Bonnie Brew Pty Ltd (ACN 642 782 081) (Applicant) to use a portion of the Grosvenor Road reserve to install a decked alfresco area for outdoor dining in the location shown at Attachment 1.

Background:

The Applicant is the tenant of Lot 1 on Deposited Plan 1237, Certificate of Title Volume 2111 Folio 336, known as 639-643 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (which was formerly operated as the Flying Scotsman).

On 22 July 2020, the City received a proposal from the Applicant to locate an alfresco deck structure within the Grosvenor Road road reserve (footpath area) beneath the existing awning at 639-643 Beaufort Street.

The Applicant presented the alfresco deck structure to the Design Review Panel (DRP) at their 29 July 2020 meeting for preliminary comment. The minutes from the DRP meeting are at Attachment 2. On 2 September 2020, the Applicant submitted a development application for the alfresco deck proposal. The development application addressed the comments made by the DRP. The plans included in Attachment 3 reflect the comments of the DRP and have been referred to the Chair of the DRP to confirm their acceptability as part of the assessment of the development application.

As the Applicant is proposing to locate a permanent structure within a road reserve it is necessary for the Minister for Lands to sign the development application as the “owner” of the road reserve. The Minister for Lands signed the development application on 10 September 2020, on the condition that the City enter into an appropriate tenure arrangement with the Applicant. The tenure arrangement would need to ensure the Minister for Lands was indemnified from any damage or loss and that the road reserve was open to the public outside of the Applicant’s trading hours.

The development application was subsequently lodged with the City on 11 September 2020 for assessment against the requirements of the local planning framework. The development application cannot be determined until tenure is granted for the portion of road reserve it will be located on (Licence Area).

639-643 Beaufort Street is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as Management Category B – Conservation Recommended. The proposed structure does not adversely impact on the heritage value of the building, and could be removed at a later date without any irreversible damage to the façade.

Details:

The alfresco deck structure will be located below the existing awning facing Grosvenor Road. The dimensions are approximately 37m by 3m. The decking will be level with the interior of the existing tavern. The structure includes a balustrade parallel to Grosvenor Road with three access points, one at-grade and two accessed by steps. The deck is open at each end, facilitating access by the public. The plans are at Attachment 3.

Administration has assessed the design of the alfresco structure against the City’s draft Development on City Owned and Managed Land Policy (Draft Policy), which was approved by Council for advertising at its 28 July 2020 Meeting. The proposed structure generally aligns with the policy objectives as it adds to the amenity of and contributes towards activating the streetscape without inhibiting the normal use of the street. It is noted that it does partially enclose a portion of the verge area, however, the structure is open allowing interaction with the street, and outside of trading hours the public can benefit from the shelter provided by the structure. The structure is also positioned within the footprint of the current balcony, so it does not change the streetscape or add additional bulk.

The proposed structure varies with several of the design requirements for ‘Structure and Shelters’ in the Draft Policy due to its length and balustrade. Notwithstanding these slight variations, Administration is supportive of the structure as it will assist in activating the street and improves the current alfresco area beneath the awning / balcony.

The structure has a 37m frontage to Grosvenor Road. This frontage provides for three access points which breaks up the sections of balustrading. The length of the balustrading sections vary between 6m and 10.4m, with the three access points varying between 2m and 2.9m wide. Administration supports these balustrade lengths (noting that they are longer than the 4m length proposed in the Draft Policy) due to the design and location of the structure – particularly the fact that the footprint of the structure aligns with the current awning of the building and is not creating additional bulk. The footpath width in this area is also sufficient to accommodate the structure without negatively impacting the movement of the public.

The proposed licence terms are consistent with the City’s Draft Policy. The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has confirmed that the proposed licence terms satisfy the Minister for Land’s requirements.

The Applicant has agreed to the proposed licence terms with the exception of term 1.5 – Non-Exclusive Use. The Applicant has requested exclusive use of the Licence Area at all times to allow it to extend its current liquor licence to cover the Licence Area.

Administration does not support the grant of exclusive use of the Licence Area for a number of reasons. In particular, granting exclusive use is inconsistent with:

(a) the City’s draft Development on City Owned and Managed Land Policy;

(b) the City’s prior grants of tenure over road reserve areas for the purpose of alfresco service;

(d) the grant of a licence (the grant of exclusive use/occupation of an area at all times is a lease).

It is Administration’s view that the public realm, which includes road reserves, should remain available for use by the general public. On this basis the structure is supported, but not exclusive use. The proposed licence terms ensure that the public can access the structure when it is not in use by the Applicant (which is outside of trading hours).

Administration also notes that it is common practice for business owners with alfresco area permits/licences to obtain an Extended Trading Permit (ETP) in order to serve alcohol within their alfresco area. Therefore, if exclusive use of the Licence Area is not granted, the Applicant can obtain an ETP in order to serve alcohol to all customers seated in the Licence Area.

On this basis it is recommended that the non-exclusive use provisions is retained in the licence.

It is noted that minor changes to the design of the structure may occur during the development application assessment process. Any changes proposed by the applicant in respect to the design of the structure would:

· be referred back to the DRP for feedback regarding its acceptability, and

· need to demonstrate that it does not inhibit public use of the space, maintains interaction and integration with the street, and ensures that the relationship with the heritage significance of the place is not lost.

In granting the licence Council is approving the use of this portion of the road reserve for the proposed structure. If the footprint of the structure changed Council’s approval of a variation to the licence area would be required.

Consultation/Advertising:

In accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) and regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Regulations), the licence meets the requirements of an exempt disposition (Regulation 30(2)(a)). As a result, local public notice of the proposed licence is not necessary.

Community consultation for the development application is currently being undertaken in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation for a period of 14 days. Consultation commenced on 22 September 2020 and will conclude on 6 October 2020.

Legal/Policy:

Section 55(2) of the Land Administration Act 1997 places responsibility for the care, control and management of road reserves (within the district of the City) with the City.

Section 3.58 of the LGA sets out the process for disposing of City owned and managed property and section 3.58(5) provides for exceptions as set out in the Regulations, as follows:

Regulation 30. Dispositions of property excluded from Act s.3.58

(2) a disposition of land is an exempt disposition if –

(a) the land is disposed of to an owner of adjoining land (in this paragraph called the transferee) and –

(i) its market value is less than $5,000; and

(ii) the local government does not consider that ownership of the land would be of significant benefit to anyone other than the transferee;

Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 provides:

(a) that the City may grant permission to a person to construct a specified thing on, over, or under a public thoroughfare or public place that is local government property; and

(b) specifies the requirements for the permission to be granted.

Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996

Regulation 17 Private works on, over, or under public places — Sch. 9.1 cl. 8

(3) A person may apply to the local government for permission to construct a specified thing on, over, or under a specified public thoroughfare or public place that is local government property.

(4) Permission granted by the local government under this regulation —

(a) must be in writing; and

(b) must specify the period for which it is granted; and

(d) may be renewed from time to time; and

(e) may be cancelled by giving written notice to the person to whom the permission was granted.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to enter into a licence for part of the road reserve which addresses the risk to the City in respect to the development application, including indemnity, liability, maintenance and removal.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

Financial/Budget Implications:

In accordance with the draft Policy, a licence fee of $30/m² per annum, indexed annually by CPI, is recommended. This equates to an annual licence fee of $3,500.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

8.6 Extension of Lease - Barlee Street Car Park, 596 (Lots 49 & 50) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley

Attachments: 1. Market valuation report - 590 and 596 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley - Confidential

2. Preliminary assessment and concept plan - Beaufort Town Square / park - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES providing local public notice pursuant to section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 of the proposed extension of the current lease of Lots 49 and 50 on Deposited Plan 692, known as 596 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (Premises) by the City from Theo Anthony Palassis, George Anthony Palassis and Palassis Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 008 779 128) (Owners) on the following key terms:

1.1 the lease will be extended for one year commencing on 14 February 2021 and expiring on 13 February 2022; and

1.2 rent for the Premises will be $60,000 per annum plus GST, outgoings and management fees.

2. If no submissions are received as a result of the public notice period in recommendation 1. above, DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer the power to enter into a deed of variation of lease to extend the lease term by one year as set out in Recommendation 1. above, and AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the deed of variation of lease.

3. NOTES that if any submissions are received as a result of the public notice period in Recommendation 1. above, the Chief Executive Officer will provide the submissions to Council for consideration and Council will determine whether to proceed with the proposed extension of lease.

4. RECIEVES the market valuation for 590 (Lot 48) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, as at Confidential Attachment 1.

5. NOTES the proposal from the Owners of 596 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley for an equal area land exchange (Lot 48 for an equal area of Lot 50), as shown in Confidential Attachment 2, noting that it would be subject to the City using the acquired land as a park, the City consulting with the Owners in respect to the design of the park and the Owners obtaining development approval for their acquired land.

6. NOTES that community consultation on the potential sale of Lot 48 will commence in 2020, which will include the proposal for a land exchange as in Recommendation 5. above.

Purpose of Report:

To consider a proposed extension of the lease by the City of Lots 49 and 50 on Deposited Plan 692, known as 596 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (Premises) from Theo Anthony Palassis, George Anthony Palassis and Palassis Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 008 779 128) (Owners).

Background:

The City owns Lot 48 on Deposited Plan 692, known as 590 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (Lot 48) and, pursuant to a lease dated 29 March 2001, leases the Premises (located on the two Lots adjacent to Lot 48) from the Owners. The lease expires on 13 February 2021.

The Premises and Lot 48 together comprise the Barlee Street carpark.

At Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 7 April 2020 (Item 12.3), Council approved the City consulting with the community, including through on-site signage, regarding the potential sale of Lot 48. Administration has discussed the potential sale of Lot 48 with the Owners. The Owners have expressed interest in an equal area land exchange (Lot 48 for an equal area of Lot 50), subject to the acquired land becoming a park. The land exchange would allow the Owners to construct their development so it opened onto and interacted with the park. The land exchange would result in a park / town square of approximately 700m²adjacent to Barlee Street. A concept plan and preliminary assessment of the proposed park / town square is at Confidential Attachment 2.

It is estimated that a land exchange, which would require public notice and the subdivision and amalgamation of the lots, would require 2-3 years to complete. The Owners are supportive of Lot 48 remaining as part of the carpark (managed by the City) in the short term until they either sell their Lots independently or the land exchange occurs.

Administration has obtained a current market valuation of Lot 48 as well as valuations for the Owners lots currently and following a potential land exchange as detailed above. The valuation report is at Confidential Attachment 1. The valuations indicate that the land exchange would increase the value of the Owners’ lots by approximately $300,000, by virtue of their lots being adjacent to and opening onto a 700m²park / Town Square.

Details:

The lease cost (rent, outgoings and management fees) for the 2019/20 financial year was $151,000. The Owners have agreed to extend the current lease for twelve months for a reduced rent of $60,000 per annum plus GST, outgoings and management fees. Administration is supportive of this offer as it would allow the City the necessary time to undertake consultation in respect to the best option for the future use of Lot 48.

If the lease is extended, the City will continue to manage the carpark and receive the parking revenue (approximately $75,000 per annum incl. GST). The carpark currently costs the City approximately $85,000 per annum to operate, as shown in the table below. It is noted that in the 2019/20 financial year less parking income was received than usual due to COVID-19.

Income/Expense (incl GST)	2019/20	2018/19	2017/18
Rental fee	-$122,746.40	-$121,052.08	-$119,393.44
Management fee	-$9,900.00	-$9,900.00	-$9,900.00
Rates and Levy costs	-$29,250.94	-$28,234.12	-$28,374.92
Parking income	$57,366.13	$75,425.98	$79,413.18
End of Year Position	-$104,531.21	-$84,089.84	-$80,610.04

The rent proposed by the Owners would significantly improve the City’s position, resulting in an annual loss of about $30,000 incl GST.

Consultation/Advertising:

In accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) local public notice of the proposed

lease would be provided for a period of at least two weeks, commencing in late October and closing in

early November. Local public notice would be provided in the following ways:

· notice in the City’s local newspapers;

· public notice on the City Administration and Civic Centre, Library and Local History Centre notice

boards; and

· notices on the City’s website, social media platforms and in the e-newsletter.

Community consultation in respect to the best future use and potential sale of Lot 48 would occur simultaneously, through a sign on the, social media exposure and brochures to local businesses and residents. This consultation will be separate to the local public notice advertising the proposed extension of the lease.

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.58(3) of the Act sets out the public notice requirements for disposal of property to a commercial entity.

Community Consultation Policy No. 4.1.5 sets out the required means of consultation.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to consider a short-term extension of the current lease of the Premises.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The rent under the proposed extension of lease would result in an annual loss of about $30,000 incl. GST for the Barlee Street carpark. This is an approximate reduction of $55,000 from the loss currently experienced by the City in regard to this carpark.

Council Briefing Agenda 13 October 2020

8.7 Approval of Policy Document Register and Review Plan and repeal of policies

Attachments: 1. Policy Document Register and Review Plan ⇩

2. Policies recommended for repeal - compiled ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council

1. APPROVES the Policy Document Register and Review Plan at Attachment 1;

2. REPEALS the following policies compiled at Attachment 2:

2.1 Residential Parking – Verge Information Signage (3.9.4);

2.2 Hiring of Banner Poles and Displaying Promotional Banners (3.10.1);

2.3 Student Citizenship Award (4.1.2);

2.4 Community - Precinct Groups (4.1.6);

2.5 Recognition of Ratepayers - Residents - Centenary Birthday - Golden Wedding Anniversary (4.1.28);

2.6 Active Citizens Award Policy (4.1.35);

2.7 Council Meetings - Preserving Order (4.2.02); and

2.8 Council Members Requests - Contact with City Employees (4.2.05); and

3. NOTES that the Policy Document Register and Review Plan will be reviewed annually and the outcome of that review will be presented to Council.

Purpose of Report:

To seek approval of the Policy Document Register and Review Plan at Attachment 1 and repeal the outdated policies at Attachment 2.

Background:

At its 15 September 2020 Meeting, Council approved providing public notice of the Policy Development and Review Policy at Attachment 1, which is proposed to replace the City’s Policy 4.1.01 – Policy Manual – Adoption and Review.

The policy provides guidance on the development, implementation, review and repeal of the City’s Strategies, Policies and Action Plans (Policy Documents).

Public consultation on the proposed policy has commenced and the outcomes of advertising is scheduled to be presented to Council at its 15 December 2020 meeting.

Details:

A key objective of the policy is that all Policy Documents align with the priorities of the Strategic Community Plan (SCP) and are developed and reviewed in close consultation with Elected Members and the community (as required).

To support the implementation of this policy, particularly a systematic review of Policy Documents, and provide a centralised location for all Policy Documents, Administration has developed a Policy Document Register and Review Plan (Plan), as at Attachment 1.

The Plan aligns the Policy Documents with the priorities of the SCP. The date of adoption, last review, comment on the review process / need for review and a proposed review date are listed.

Administration has identified a number of policies that either no longer align with the City’s practices, or the content is operational only, and policy direction from Council is not required.

It is proposed that the following policies are repealed:

Policy Name	Commentary
Residential Parking – Verge Information Signage (3.9.4)	The content is operational - relates to size and content of information signs on verges and the process for erecting a sign. This information will be contained in an internal procedure.
Hiring of Banner Poles and Displaying Promotional Banners (3.10.1)	Not required as the City no longer hires banner poles.
City of Vincent Student Citizenship Award (4.1.2)	The content is operational. A documented policy position is unnecessary. Procedural content will form part of the suite of programs and initiatives offered annually to all local schools within the City of Vincent.
Precinct Groups (4.1.6)	The content is operational. The City’s Community Funding Policy ensures that financial support is available to community groups and clubs through waiving of fees and through the pool of funding allocated for donations and grants. The proposed Property Management Framework also provides an avenue of financial support for City tenants.
Recognition of Ratepayers - Residents - Centenary Birthday - Golden Wedding Anniversary (4.1.28)	This policy is outdated, does not represent current practice and does not align with the City’s current method of recognition.
Active Citizens Award Policy (4.1.35)	Not required as the City no longer runs these awards. It is noted that the Mayor hosts an annual Christmas event for community members and volunteers, which is a way of recognising and celebrating community members’ involvement.
Council Meetings - Preserving Order (4.2.02)	The high-level principles covered in this policy are addressed in the City’s Meeting Procedures Local law. Further clarification of these principles is not necessary.
Council Members Requests - Contact with City Employees (4.2.05)	This policy is outdated and does not reflect current practice (including the CMR process). The Governance Framework addresses Elected Member requests and response time.

Administration is also proposing the repeal of the following five policies on the adoption of the City’s Public Health Plan, as these policies are either superseded by the Public Health Plan; are operational documents that have no legal, legislative or regulatory requirements; and/or the policy replicates existing legislation.

· Policy No. 3.8.4 – Safe Needle Syringe Collection and Disposal Strategy;

· Policy No. 3.8.6 – Public Buildings - Use of Open Fires;

· Policy No. 3.8.8 – Rodent and Vermin Control - Assistance to Ratepayers;

· Policy No. 3.8.9 – Healthy Vincent; and

· Policy No. 3.8.10 – Food Act 2008.

The repeal of these three policies is addressed in the Public Health Plan 2020-2025 – Outcome of Public Consultation report in this Council Agenda.

Administration has also recently reviewed the below three policies. The outcome of these reviews and proposed amendments will be discussed with Elected Members at the 27 October 2020 Council Workshop.

· Library Collection Management (3.11.1)

· Local History Collection Management (3.11.2)

· Access Equity (3.10.2)

These polices will be transferred to the new policy template as part of the review.

The proposed policy amendments will subsequently be presented to Council for approval to advertise.

Policy Document Review Process

The Plan identifies policies that are scheduled for review over the next quarter. It is proposed that the outcome of the review of each of these policies is presented to Council at the Council Workshop in February 2021.

A collective approach will assist with consistency in the review and drafting of the Policy Documents and enable collaborative community consultation:

The policies being reviewed over the next four months are as follows:

· Parks, Reserves and Hall Facilities – Conditions of Hire and Use (2.1.7)

· Graffiti – Control and Removal (2.1.3)

· BPLC - Awarding of Life Membership (1.3.1)

· Closed Circuit Television (3.9.12)

· Memorial in Parks and Public Reserves (2.1.5)

· Percent for Public Art (7.5.13)

· Council Members and Employees Business Dealings with the City (4.2.10)

· Council Member Contact with Developers (4.2.15)

· Council Members – Allowances, fees and reimbursement of expenses policy

· Parklets (2.2.13)

Administration is proposing to review the Plan annually and present the outcome of each review to Council in accordance with clause 5.3 of the proposed Policy Development and Review Policy.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation on the repeal of the above policies or adoption of the Plan is not required.

Legal/Policy:

Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides that Council is to determine the City’s policies. Policies provide guidance to the City's Administration and Elected Members.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for Council to repeal the above policies which no longer align with the City’s practices and adopt the Policy Document Register and Review Plan

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The following health policies are also recommended for repeal in conjunction with the adoption of the Public Health Plan. The repeal of these policies will be presented to Council along with the recommended adoption of the Public Health Plan, which is a separate item in the Council Agenda.

· Safe Needle Syringe Collection and Disposal Strategy (3.8.4);

· Public Buildings - Use of Open Fires (3.8.6);

· Rodent and Vermin Control - Assistance to Ratepayers (3.8.8);

· Healthy Vincent (3.8.9); and

· Food Act 2008 (3.8.10)

The repeal of each policy will also be recorded in the Plan.

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ BATCH NUMBER	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
EFT Payments	2570 – 2581	$2,988,810.33
Payroll by Direct Credit	August 2020	$1,214,169.09
Sub Total		$4,202,979.42

Cheques
Cheques	82608 - 82609	$456.55
Sub Total		$456.55

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)
Lease Fees		$395.84
Loan Repayments		$100,782.60
Bank Charges – CBA		$55,253.51
Credit Cards		$6,879.92
Sub Total		$163,311.87

Total Payments		$4,366,747.84

ROW	Private Owner	Comments
Lot 66 on Plan 2411	Arthur Meeres, Cecil Throssell and George Lionel Throssell.	Named in part Cielo Lane, located between Fitzgerald , Vincent, Throssell and Glendower Streets
Lot 66 on Plan 379	Alice Illingworth	Running from Glendower to Bulwer Street, between Palmerston, Glendower, Lake and Bulwer Streets.
Lot 66 on Plan 1641	Edward Refuurdson	Between Lake, Primrose, Irene and Bulwer Streets.
Lot 66 on Plan 1177	Anastasia Murphy	Running from William Street to Bulwer Avenue, between William Street, Lincoln Street, Bulwer Avenue and Bulwer Street.
Lot 67 on Diagram 2962	Hyem Hester	Small spur off Lot 66 on Plan 1177, between Knebworth Avenue, Lincoln Street, Bulwer Avenue and Bulwer Street.
Lot 14 on Plan 91	John Rodgers	Between Grant, Lincoln, Beaufort and Bulwer Streets.

Location of Meetings:	Member Councils on a rotation basis
Time of Meetings:	6.00pm
Meeting Occurrence:	Bi-monthly
Day of Meetings:	Thursday
Dates of Meetings for the remainder of 2020:	Council Meetings: 8 October, 10 December Committee Meetings: · Management Committee: alternate bi-monthly (5 per year): 12 November · Audit Committee Meetings: ad hoc (approximately 3-4 per year) · CEO Performance Review Committee: ad hoc (approximately 3-4 per year) Note: the Member is encouraged to nominate for at least one Committee
No. of Meetings held in 2020 so far:	4 Meetings
Responsible Liaison Officer:	Chief Executive Officer
Purpose of Council:	To make decisions concerning the Tamala Park land and its redevelopment.
Member Sitting Fees (as per SAT decision):	· $10,560 per annum · $0 per meeting for Alternate Member